Com. v. Sprull, S. ( 2023 )

J-S45042-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
STEPHEN R. SPRULL :
:
Appellant : No. 1424 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0002139-2010
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MARCH 02, 2023
Stephen R. Sprull (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order dismissing
as untimely his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
On October 29, 2009, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with
murder and related offenses involving the killing of Clinton Zimmerman, Jr.
The record reflects that on July 15, 2011, Appellant appeared for a
competency hearing. The PCRA court explained, inter alia, that
[Appellant had been] given a mini mental examination by a
psychologist in the courthouse who determined his I.Q. score to
be 64. A full-scale I.Q. test was ordered by the court, however,
[Appellant] refused to participate. Furthermore, two doctors
found the [Appellant] to be competent.
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/18/22, at 4; see also N.T., 7/15/11, at 2-4. Appellant
likewise testified he was competent to stand trial. Id. at 16, 25, 30, 40-41.
J-S45042-22
The case proceeded to trial, and on August 25, 2011, a jury convicted
Appellant of first-degree murder and related offenses. The trial court
sentenced Appellant to mandatory life imprisonment. On May 29, 2013, this
Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Sprull, 81
A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not
petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On February 21, 2021, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition.
The PCRA court appointed counsel. On December 27, 2021, counsel filed a
motion to withdraw and Turner/Finley no-merit letter.1 On March 18, 2022,
the PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss the petition without an
evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On April 21, 2022, the
court dismissed the petition as untimely. Appellant filed this appeal.2
Appellant states his issue as follows:
Whether [the] PCRA court[’s] determination/ruling was free from
legal error, where Appellant was able to show and prove that his
PCRA petition was timely in compliance with 42 [Pa.C.S.A. §]
9545(b)(1)(ii)?
Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unnumbered).
It is well-settled that we review an order denying PCRA relief “in the
light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.”
____________________________________________
1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
2 Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2-
J-S45042-22
Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865, 872 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)).
This Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports
the conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2012). We
grant great deference to the PCRA court’s findings and will not disturb them
unless they have no support in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Rigg,
84 A.3d 1080, 1084 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Further, Pennsylvania law makes clear that no court has jurisdiction to
consider an untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d
1076, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2010). A petitioner must file a PCRA petition within
one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final,
unless one of the three statutory exceptions (government interference,
unknown facts, or a newly recognized constitutional right) applies. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A petitioner must file a petition invoking an exception
“within one year of the date the claim could have been presented.” 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). If a petition is untimely and the petitioner has not
pled and proven an exception, “neither this Court nor the trial court has
jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the
legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v.
Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth
v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006)).
-3-
J-S45042-22
“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 the
review.’” Monaco, 996 A.2d at 1079 (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3)).
Here, Appellant’s petition is facially untimely; his judgment of sentence
became final on June 27, 2014, and he filed the underlying petition nearly
seven years late, on February 21, 2021. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice,
3/18/22, at 2 (unnumbered).
Although Appellant asserts his petition falls within the exception for
unknown facts and “after discovered evidence,” the record does not support
this claim. The PCRA court explained:
[Appellant] does not meet the new fact exception. Initially, the
[Appellant’s] preliminary I.Q. of 64 is not a new fact. A pre-trial
competency hearing was held on [July 15], 2011, where it was
mentioned numerous times in the presence of [Appellant] and
directly to [Appellant] that a mini I.Q. test [performed] by the
court[-appointed] psychologist on the initial date of trial revealed
an I.Q. of 64. It is worth noting that the court ordered a full I.Q.
test [and Appellant] refused to participate. At the competency
hearing, two doctors testified that [Appellant] was competent to
stand trial and the court agreed. Nevertheless, [Appellant] knew
this information as of 2011 and failed to file a PCRA until 2021.
Even if one were to credit [Appellant’s] claim that he was
unaware of his I.Q. score until [a later] hearing on January 13,
2012, his claim still fails to meet the new fact exception since his
judgment of sentence became final on [June] 27, 2014, and his
PCRA was filed in 2021. Lastly[, Appellant] makes no claim that
he was incompetent from 2014 to 2021, thereby preventing him
from raising his claim in a timely fashion.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, 3/18/22, at 2-3 (unnumbered).
-4-
J-S45042-22
Incompetence may qualify as an exception to the PCRA time bar.
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 852 A.2d 287, 293 (Pa. 2004). However, it does
so only under limited circumstances, none of which are present in this case.
See Monaco, 996 A.2d at 1080-81. Furthermore, in Commonwealth v.
Shaw, 217 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2019), this Court held that where a
defendant’s mental health problems were considered at trial and sentencing,
they did not qualify as a “new fact” and could not defeat the PCRA’s time bar.
See id. at 272.
Accordingly, Appellant failed to plead and prove an exception to the
PCRA time-bar. As his PCRA petition is untimely, we, like the PCRA court, lack
jurisdiction and “the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/2/2023
-5-