Com. v. Macklin, O. ( 2015 )

J-S43019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
OLIVER MACKLIN
Appellant No. 2962 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 3, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1003171-1985
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2015
Appellant, Oliver Macklin, appeals pro se from the order entered
October 3, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
which dismissed his serial PCRA1 petition. We affirm.
On April 28, 1986, a jury convicted Macklin of murder of the second
degree and criminal conspiracy. On September 24, 1986, the trial court
sentenced Macklin to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment of
sentence on September 1, 1988, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied allocatur on March 30, 1989. Commonwealth v. Macklin, 549 A.2d
1341 (Pa. Super. 1988) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 558
A.2d 531 (Pa. 1989). Macklin thereafter filed four PCRA petitions, all of
____________________________________________
1
Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S43019-15
which were denied in the court below and affirmed by this Court appeal. On
July 29, 2013, Macklin filed the instant PCRA petition, styled as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus. On August 12, 2014, the PCRA court issued
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice; Macklin filed a response on August 25, 2014. On
October 3, 2014, the court dismissed Macklin’s petition as untimely. This
timely appeal followed.
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.
Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008). A PCRA
petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment
becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at the
conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The three statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s
timeliness provisions allow for very limited circumstances under which the
late filing of a petition will be excused. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A
petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a petition within 60 days
of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
Instantly, although styled as a “habeas corpus petition,” Macklin’s
claim is cognizable under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Concordia, 97
A.3d 366 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating challenge to legality of sentence is
cognizable under PCRA). Therefore, the PCRA court properly treated
Macklin’s petition as a serial PCRA petition subject to the PCRA’s time
restrictions. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (stating PCRA shall be sole means of
obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and
-2-
J-S43019-15
statutory remedies for same purpose); Commonwealth v. Deaner, 779
A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating any collateral petition raising issues
with respect to remedies offered under PCRA will be considered PCRA
petition). Macklin’s judgment of sentence became final on May 29, 1989, 60
days after our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal and the time
expired for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court. See 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9545(b)(3); U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13.
Macklin filed the current PCRA petition on July 29, 2013, more than 24 years
after his judgment of sentence became final. Thus, Macklin’s petition is
patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Although Macklin
purports to plead and prove the after-discovered facts exception to the
PCRA’s time restrictions under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), his argument is
nonsensical. Thus, the court properly dismissed the petition as time-barred.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/29/2015
-3-