Com. v. Faulkner, M. ( 2017 )

J-S67034-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MAALIK FAULKNER :
:
Appellant : No. 3452 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 4, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001022-2010
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 19, 2017
Appellant, Maalik Faulkner, appeals from the order entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied as untimely his
first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1
Appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of robbery and one count each
of third-degree murder, conspiracy, and aggravated assault on March 8,
2012. The court sentenced Appellant on March 13, 2012, to an aggregate
term of thirty (30) to sixty (60) years’ imprisonment; Appellant did not file a
direct appeal. On November 10, 2015, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition
pro se, and the court appointed counsel on May 16, 2016. On June 26,
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S67034-17
2016, PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley2 no-merit letter and a motion to
withdraw as counsel. The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its
intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing on August 18, 2016. On
October 4, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed the petition and permitted PCRA
counsel to withdraw. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on October 24,
2016. On November 10, 2016, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on December 6, 2016.
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.
Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa.Super. 2016). No court has
jurisdiction to review an untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v.
Albrecht, 606 Pa. 64, 994 A.2d 1091 (2010). 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); Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956
A.2d 978 (2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1285, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d
277 (2009). A judgment is deemed 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 time for seeking
review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The three statutory exceptions to the
PCRA timeliness provisions allow for very limited circumstances under which
____________________________________________
2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2-
J-S67034-17
the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “A
claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise
untimely petition for review on the merits.” Commonwealth v. Gamboa-
Taylor, 562 Pa. 70, 80, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (2000).
Instantly, the court sentenced Appellant on March 13, 2012, and
Appellant did not pursue direct review. Appellant’s judgment of sentence
became final on April 12, 2012, upon expiration of the time to file a notice of
appeal with the Superior Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (stating notice of
appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of order from which appeal is
taken). Appellant filed his first PCRA petition on November 10, 2015, more
than three years after his judgment of sentence became final, so his petition
is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (3); Hackett, supra.Additionally, Appellant’s PCRA petition asserts only a generic claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel and neither alleges nor proves any of the
three cognizable exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirements. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); Gamboa-Taylor, supra. Accordingly, the PCRA
court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely. See Zeigler,
supra; Albrecht, supra.Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S67034-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/19/2017
-4-