Haneef, A. v. Commonwealth ( 2014 )

J-S64012-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ABDULLAH-HANEEF: IBN-SADIIKA, REAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PARTY IN INTEREST AND IN BEHALF OF PENNSYLVANIA
ENS LEGIS: ABDULLAH HANEEF IBN-
SADIKA
Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee No. 287 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010761-1984,
CP-02-0011275-1984
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 05, 2014
Abdullah Haneef Ibn-Sadiika appeals pro se from the order entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing his petition filed
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
On February 7, 1986, the trial court sentenced Ibn-Sadiika to life
imprisonment following his conviction for first-degree murder. This Court
affirmed Ibn-Sadiika’s judgment of sentence on March 27, 1987. See
Commonwealth v. Haneef Ibn-Sadiika, 526 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Super. 1987)
(unpublished memorandum). Subsequently, Ibn-Sadiika filed a petition for
____________________________________________
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S64012-14
allowance of appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which the
Court ultimately denied on October 1, 1987. Com v. Ibn-Sadiika, 532
A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1987). Thereafter, Ibn-Sadiika sought post-conviction relief,
but failed to raise any meritorious issues. See Commonwealth v. Ibn-
Sadiika, 913 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (unpublished memorandum).
On August 27, 2013, Ibn-Sadiika filed a writ of habeas corpus, the
focus of the instant appeal. The court, treating the matter as a request for
relief under the PCRA, found the petition to be time-barred, as well as
frivolous, and dismissed it on January 14, 2014. The instant appeal
followed, in which Ibn-Sadiika argues that the court abused its discretion
when it dismissed his writ of habeas corpus as an untimely PCRA petition.
We disagree.
The PCRA provides, “The action established in this subchapter shall be
the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other
common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when
this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus. . . .” 42 Pa.C.S. §
9542 (emphasis added). Accordingly, unless the PCRA cannot provide a
potential remedy, this Court will treat a writ of habeas corpus as a PCRA
petition. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465-66 (Pa. Super.
2013).
Ibn-Sadiika insists that a claim of actual innocence is not cognizable
under the PCRA, and, therefore relief is available to him under habeas. To
quote our Supreme Court,
-2-
J-S64012-14
This argument is specious; although § 9543 does not use the
term “actual innocence” in enumerating cognizable claims, the
[PCRA] specifically states it is intended to “provide[] for an
action by which persons convicted of crimes they did not commit
. . . may obtain collateral relief.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542.
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 738 (Pa. 2003).
Accordingly, the trial court correctly found Ibn-Sadiika’s writ of habeas
corpus to fall within the confines of the PCRA.
Ibn-Sadiika’s petition, which he filed on August, 27, 2013, is patently
untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) (PCRA petition must be filed within
one year of date of underlying judgment becoming final). Moreover, Ibn-
Sadiika fails to establish one of the cognizable exceptions to the PCRA
timeliness requirements in his petition. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)
(providing three exceptions to one-year time limit under PCRA).
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of Ibn-Sadiika’s appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness of a
PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/5/2014
-3-