Com. v. Muhammad, D. ( 2015 )

J-S71026-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DALIYL RAA’ID MUHAMMAD
Appellant No. 535 MDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order February 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002967-2002
CP-22-CR-0003009-2002
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JANUARY 23, 2015
Appellant, Daliyl Raa’id Muhammad, is a serial PCRA petitioner and pro
se motions filer. The instant petition—his fourth before this Court—was filed
on May 31, 2013. Muhammad’s judgment of sentence became final on
September 16, 2004, which date is thirty days after this Court affirmed his
judgment of sentence. In this appeal, he claims that he has pled two
exceptions to the time bar provided in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9545(b), specifically
subsections (i) and (ii).
The bases for the exceptions are materials he received from “York
County authorities on December 27, 2011,” and an “affidavit” from a fellow
inmate, James Blackwell, which is dated April 20, 2011. The “affidavit” was a
____________________________________________

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S71026-14
subject of Muhammad’s PCRA petition filed in 2011, see PCRA petition, filed
May 23, 2011, at ¶15, and this Court explained why it does not constitute
after-discovered evidence, see Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 1605 MDA
2011, at 3 n.3 (Pa. Super., filed March 26, 2012) (unpublished
memorandum). Muhammad obviously cannot now relitigate this issue in the
current appeal.
As for the December 27, 2011 materials, Muhammad did not file the
instant petition containing this claim until May 31, 2013—318 days after this
Court dismissed his previous petition. Muhammad had 60 days to file a
petition containing this claim from the date of the order resolving his
previous petition. See Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa.
2000). Even assuming for the sake of argument that such a claim fits within
an exception to the timeliness requirement, we note that it must fail, as it
was not filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been
presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2); Commonwealth v. Geer, 936
A.2d 1075, 1077 (Pa. Super. 2007). The PCRA court correctly determined
that it was without jurisdiction to hear this untimely petition.
Muhammad has filed in this Court a petition seeking a stay of this
appeal pending a remand for an evidentiary hearing. We deny that motion.
-2-
J-S71026-14
Order affirmed. Motion for stay denied. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/23/2015
-3-