Com. v. Ohler, S. ( 2018 )

J. S18031/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
STANLEY OHLER, : No. 1449 WDA 2017
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order, September 20, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No. CP-26-CR-0001649-2007
BEFORE: STABILE, J., MUSMANNO, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 25, 2018
Appellant, Stanley Allan Ohler, appeals pro se from the September 20,
2017 order dismissing his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we
affirm.
A jury convicted appellant of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
(“IDSI”), statutory sexual assault, and aggravated indecent assault 1 on
March 8, 2008. At sentencing on June 3, 2008, the trial court adjudicated
appellant as a sexually violent predator, required him to register as a
sex offender for life, and sentenced appellant to 6-12 years’ imprisonment.
We affirmed appellant’s judgment of sentence on April 14, 2009.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(a)(2), 3122.1, and 3125(8), respectively.
J. S18031/18
Commonwealth v. Ohler, 972 A.2d 559 (Pa.Super. 2009) (unpublished
memorandum). Appellant did not file a petition for allocatur with our
supreme court on direct appeal.
On September 8, 2009, appellant filed his first PCRA petition. The
PCRA court denied appellant’s petition on May 27, 2010, and we affirmed the
PCRA court’s denial on June 16, 2011. Commonwealth v. Ohler, 31 A.3d
746 (Pa.Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum). Our supreme court
denied appellant’s petition for allocatur on November 22, 2011.
Commonwealth v. Ohler, 34 A.3d 82 (Pa. 2011).
On August 4, 2016, appellant filed his second PCRA petition, which
was dismissed without a hearing on September 22, 2016. Appellant filed the
instant PCRA petition on August 23, 2017, and the PCRA court entered a
notice of intent to dismiss appellant’s PCRA petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
907 on August 29, 2017. The PCRA court dismissed appellant’s PCRA
petition on September 20, 2017.2
Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court on October 4, 2017. The
PCRA court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on October 20,
2017, and appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on November 3, 2017.
2 While the instant PCRA petition was pending before the PCRA court,
appellant filed a fourth PCRA petition on September 8, 2017. The PCRA
court dismissed appellant’s fourth petition without prejudice on October 20,
2017.
-2-
J. S18031/18
On November 28, 2017, the PCRA court filed a statement in lieu of an
opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
In reviewing appellant’s seven-page brief, we note that appellant failed
to include a coherent statement of questions involved pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 2116.3 The three issues appellant sets forth in his brief can be
condensed to the following issue for our review: whether our supreme
court’s recent finding that the retroactive application of the registration
requirements pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(“SORNA”) is unconstitutional applies retroactively to appellant?
Subsequent PCRA petitions beyond a petitioner’s first petition are
subject to the following standard:
A second or subsequent petition for post-conviction
relief will not be entertained unless a strong
prima facie showing is offered to demonstrate that
a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582, 586 (Pa.
1999). A prima facie showing of entitlement to
relief is made only by demonstrating either that the
proceedings which resulted in conviction were so
unfair that a miscarriage of justice occurred which no
3 Appellant’s statement of questions involved is as follows:
1. Whether the lifetime registration of sex
offenders is unconstitutional[?]
2. Whether the registration should apply to the
appellant[?]
3. Being the appellant was sentenced before the
registration was made into law.
Appellant’s brief at 3 (full capitalization omitted).
-3-
J. S18031/18
civilized society could tolerate, or the defendant’s
innocence of the crimes for which he was charged.
Id. at 586. Our standard of review for an order
denying post-conviction relief is limited to whether
the trial court’s determination is supported by
evidence of record and whether it is free of legal
error. Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 709 A.2d 849,
856 (Pa. 1998).
A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent
petition, must be filed within one year of the date
that judgment of sentence becomes final.
42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b)(1). A judgment becomes
final for purposes of the PCRA “at the conclusion of
direct review, including discretionary review in the
Supreme Court of the United States and the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or the expiration of
time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9543(b)(3). PCRA time limits are jurisdictional in
nature, implicating a court’s very power to
adjudicate a controversy. Commonwealth v. Fahy,
737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999). Accordingly, the “period
for filing a PCRA petition can be extended only if the
PCRA permits it to be extended, i.e., by operation of
one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to the
PCRA time-bar. Id. at 222.
Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173, 176-177 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied,
135 S.Ct. 707 (2014). Before we can address appellant’s issues on the
merits, we must first determine if we have jurisdiction to do so.
As noted above, a PCRA petitioner has one year from the date his or
her judgment of sentence becomes final in which to file a PCRA petition.
This court has held the following regarding when a judgment becomes final:
The plain language of the PCRA provides that a
judgment of sentence becomes final at the
conclusion of direct review or when the time seeking
direct review expires. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(b)(3). In fixing the date upon which a
-4-
J. S18031/18
judgment of sentence becomes final, the PCRA does
not refer to the conclusion of collateral review or the
time for appealing a collateral review determination.
Thus, the plain language of the PCRA statute shows
that a judgment of sentence becomes final
immediately upon expiration of time for seeking
direct review, even if other collateral proceedings are
still ongoing. As this result is not absurd or
unreasonable, we may not look for further
manifestations of legislative intent. See
Commonwealth v. Hall, 80 A.3d 1204, 1211 (Pa.
2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (We may
“look beyond the plain language of the statute only
when words are unclear or ambiguous, or the plain
meaning would lead to a result that is absurd,
impossible of execution, or unreasonable.”).
Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 112, 118 (Pa.Super. 2014).
In the instant case, this court affirmed appellant’s judgment of
sentence on April 14, 2009, and appellant did not file a petition for allocatur
with our supreme court. Accordingly, appellant’s judgment of sentence
became final on May 14, 2009. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Appellant filed the
instant petition on August 23, 2017—more than eight years after his
judgment of sentence became final and more than seven years after a PCRA
petition could be considered timely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).
As noted above, the PCRA does enumerate exceptions to the one-year
requirement. A petitioner may overcome the one-year time bar under the
PCRA after one year has passed from the final judgment of sentence if he or
she pleads and proves any of the following reasons:
(i) [T]he failure to raise the claim previously was
the result of interference by government
officials with the presentation of the claim in
-5-
J. S18031/18
violation of the Constitution or laws of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of
the United States;
(ii) [T]he facts upon which the claim is predicated
were unknown to the petitioner and could not
have been ascertained by the exercise of due
diligence; or
(iii) [T]he right asserted is a constitutional right
that was recognized by the Supreme Court of
the United States or the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania after the time period provided in
this section and has been held by that court to
apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Section 9545 also mandates that any
petition filed under these exceptions must be filed within 60 days of the date
the claim could have been presented. Id. at § 9545(b)(2).
Here, appellant appears to rely on our supreme court’s recent holding
that a retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions is
unconstitutional, as it violates the ex post facto prohibitions contained
within both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189, 1223 (Pa. 2017). Shortly after
our supreme court announced its decision in Muniz, this court determined
that the holding in Muniz “should be retroactively applied in state collateral
courts to comply with the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera-Figueroa, 174 A.3d 674, 678 (Pa.Super.
2017), citing Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734 (2016).
-6-
J. S18031/18
Most recently, in Commonwealth v. Murphy, A.3d , 2018 WL
947156 (Pa.Super. 2018), a case involving an untimely PCRA petition, we
held that the defendant was required to demonstrate that the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania has held Muniz applies retroactively in order to satisfy
the time-bar exception of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9454(b)(1)(iii) (new constitutional
right exception), and because, currently, no such holding has been issued by
our supreme court, appellant cannot rely on Muniz to meet that timeliness
exception.
The Murphy court acknowledged the holding in Rivera-Figueroa and
distinguished the case before it from Rivera-Figueroa. Murphy, 2018 WL
947156 at *3. In Murphy, similar to the case before us, the defendant’s
petition was untimely. Id. To the contrary, the petition at issue in Rivera-
Figueroa was timely filed. Rivera-Figueroa, 174 A.3d at 677.
Consequently, because appellant’s petition is untimely and our
supreme court has not held that Muniz applies retroactively to satisfy the
new constitutional right exception to the one-year time bar, appellant’s
petition is untimely and we do not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s
appeal on its merits.4
Order affirmed.
4 Even if appellant’s petition were timely filed in this case, his petition would
nevertheless fail on the merits, because he was subject to lifetime
registration requirements prior to SORNA; therefore, any retroactive effects
did not alter his sentence.
-7-
J. S18031/18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/25/2018
-8-