Com. v. Samuels, G. ( 2018 )

J. S70009/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
GREGORY SAMUELS, : No. 4088 EDA 2017
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order, December 5, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0609081-2000
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2018
Gregory Samuels appeals pro se from the December 5, 2017 order
denying his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”)1 as untimely. After careful review, we affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history
of this case as follows:
On September 6, 1999, [appellant] fatally shot his
girlfriend, Bathsheba Woodall, in Philadelphia.
U.S. Marshalls apprehended [appellant] several
months later in Jamaica. On March 23, 2001,
following a jury trial presided over by the Honorable
James A. Lineberger, [appellant] was convicted of
first-degree murder and possession of an instrument
of crime (“PIC”).[2] On the same date, the trial court
sentenced [appellant] to life imprisonment for the
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a) and 907(a), respectively.
J. S70009/18
murder conviction and a lesser, consecutive term of
incarceration for the PIC conviction. On
November 14, 2002, following a direct appeal, the
Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
[See Commonwealth v. Samuels, 816 A.2d 334(Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1145(Pa. 2004).] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied allocatur on November 12, 2004. [Id.]
While his petition for allowance of appeal was still
pending before our Supreme Court, [appellant] filed
his first pro se PCRA petition on November 7,
2003.[Footnote 4] Counsel was appointed who
subsequently filed a Turner/Finley “no-merit”
letter.[Footnote 5] After conducting an independent
review, the PCRA court denied relief on
November 23, 2004 and granted counsel leave to
withdraw. On May 3, 2006, the Superior Court
affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of post-conviction
relief. [See Commonwealth v. Samuels, 903 A.2d
51 (Pa.Super. 2006).] [Appellant] did not seek
allocatur in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
[Footnote 4] Although [appellant’s] PCRA
petition was premature, the PCRA court
did not finally rule on his petition until
after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied his petition for allowance of
appeal. Accordingly, the PCRA court
deemed [appellant’s] petition timely filed
on November 13, 2004, the day after our
Supreme Court denied allowance of
appeal.
[Footnote 5] Commonwealth v.
Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d
213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
[Appellant] was subsequently unsuccessful in
obtaining post-conviction relief through a serial PCRA
petition filed in 2012. [See Commonwealth v.
Samuels, 122 A.3d 1141 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal
denied, 126 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2015).]
-2-
J. S70009/18
On January 24, 2017, [appellant] filed the instant
pro se PCRA petition, his third. [Appellant] filed an
amended petition [on May 2, 2017] which was
reviewed jointly with his initial petition. Pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907,
Petitioner was served notice of the PCRA court’s
intention to dismiss his petition on November 16,
2017. [Appellant] did not submit a response to the
Rule 907 notice. On December 5, 2017, the PCRA
court dismissed his PCRA petition as untimely. On
December 12, 2017, the instant notice of appeal was
timely filed to the Superior Court.
PCRA court opinion, 4/16/18 at 1-2 (additional footnotes omitted).3
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Is the after discovered fact is [sic] readily
available in public domain, and should be
considered previously known facts?
2. Does pro se prisoner have readily available
access to public information?
Appellant’s brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).4
Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition
is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is
supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller,
102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “The PCRA court’s
findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in
3The PCRA court did not order appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On April 16,
2018, the PCRA court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
4 Appellant’s pro se brief does not contain pagination; for the ease of our
discussion, we have assigned each page a corresponding number.
-3-
J. S70009/18
the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa.Super.
2014) (citations omitted). “This Court grants great deference to the findings
of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those findings merely because the
record could support a contrary holding.” Commonwealth v. Hickman,
799 A.2d 136, 140 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citation omitted). Additionally, we
note that, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the
appellant[.]” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Super.
2005) (citation omitted).
All PCRA petitions, including second and subsequent petitions, must be
filed within one year of when a defendant’s judgment of sentence becomes
final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “A judgment becomes final at the
conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme
Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the
expiration of the time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
If a PCRA petition is untimely, a court lacks jurisdiction over the petition.
Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118, 120-121 (Pa.Super. 2014).
Here, appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on February 10,
2005, 90 days after our supreme court denied allowance of appeal and the
deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of
the United States expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Accordingly,
appellant had until February 10, 2006, to file a timely PCRA petition. See
-4-
J. S70009/18
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant’s instant petition, filed nearly 11 years
later on January 24, 2017, is patently untimely. As a result, the PCRA court
lacked jurisdiction to review appellant’s petition, unless appellant alleged
and proved one of the statutory exceptions to the time-bar, as set forth in
Section 9545(b)(1).
To invoke an exception under Section 9545(b)(1), a petitioner must
allege and prove:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the
result of interference by government officials
with the presentation of the claim in violation
of the Constitution or laws of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of
the United States;
(ii) the 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) the 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).
The crux of appellant’s argument is that his recent discovery of
allegations of police misconduct on the part of Detective Thomas Augustine,
the detective who took his statement in this case approximately 18 years
ago, satisfies the newly discovered fact exception to the PCRA time-bar.
(Appellant’s brief at 1-2.) Appellant alleges he discovered
-5-
J. S70009/18
Detective Augustine’s misconduct from a Philadelphia Daily News article
that circulated during his “lifer’s association meeting” at SCI-Dallas on
January 8, 2017, which in turn led him to discover the United States District
Court’s decision in Hill v. Wetzel, 279 F.Supp.3d 550 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
(Id.; see also amended PCRA petition, 5/2/17 at unnumbered page 6, ¶ 23
and Exhibit B.) In Hill, the United States District Court set forth
Detective Augustine’s misconduct in taking two defendants’ sworn
statements “in the infamous 1995 ‘center city jogger’ case.” See Hill,
279 F.Supp.3d at 558 n.9. This claim is meritless.
Contrary to appellant’s contention, we find the fact that
Detective Augustine was involved in misconduct in unrelated cases does not
constitute a newly discovered fact that would invoke the protections afforded
by Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). Rather, the alleged newly discovered fact simply
supports a previously known “fact,” and therefore does not satisfy the
exception to the time-bar. “[T]he focus of [the newly discovered fact]
exception is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or
newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v.
Fennell, 180 A.3d 778, 782 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 192 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2018). Moreover, appellant has failed to
present a scintilla of verifiable evidence to support his contention that
Detective Augustine coerced or engaged in any misconduct whatsoever in
the taking of appellant’s statement in the case sub judice. Additionally,
-6-
J. S70009/18
even if appellant’s claim met the underlying requirements of
Section 9545(b)(1), he still would not be entitled to any relief. Appellant has
failed to demonstrate that he brought this exception to the PCRA time-bar
within 60 days of the date it could have been presented, as required by
Section 9545(b)(2). Hill was decided on November 10, 2016; the
Philadelphia Daily News article in question was published on
November 17, 2016; and appellant did not file the instant pro se PCRA
petition until January 24, 2017.
Based on the foregoing, we discern no error on the part of the PCRA
court in dismissing appellant’s third PCRA petition as untimely.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/20/18
-7-