Hoffman, D. v. Rozum, G. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-S32009-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    DARIN W. HOFFMAN                               IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant
    v.
    SUPERINTENDENT GERALD R. ROZUM,
    STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE AT
    SOMERSET, PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee                   No. 642 WDA 2013
    Appeal from the Order March 7, 2013
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County
    Civil Division at No(s): 516 Civil 2010
    BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DONOHUE, J., and ALLEN, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.:                          FILED AUGUST 5, 2014
    Appellant, Darin W. Hoffman, appeals from the order entered March 7,
    2013, by the Honorable David C. Klementik, Court of Common Pleas of
    Somerset County, that dismissed Hoffman’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
    Corpus.    We conclude that Hoffman’s petition is subject to the Post
    Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), that the petition is a second, untimely
    petition and that Hoffman has not pled the existence of any time-bar
    exceptions. As a result, the PCRA court did not have jurisdiction to entertain
    the petition, and we therefore affirm.
    As we write this memorandum primarily for the parties, we shall set
    forth only so much of the factual and procedural history as is necessary to
    address the appeal. On October 26, 1998, a jury convicted Hoffman of first
    J-S32009-14
    degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license.        Thereafter, on
    December 14, 1998, the trial court sentenced Hoffman to an aggregate term
    of life imprisonment.
    This Court affirmed Hoffman’s judgment of sentence on September 28,
    1999.     Hoffman then filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which the
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied by order dated June 1, 2000. Two
    weeks later, Hoffman filed his first petition pursuant to the PCRA. The PCRA
    court denied relief on Hoffman’s petition by order dated December 30, 2002,
    and this Court affirmed on November 26, 2003.
    On March 7, 2013, Hoffman filed the instant petition for habeas corpus
    relief, along with a petition for in forma pauperis relief.   The PCRA court
    denied Hoffman in forma pauperis status, finding that the petition for habeas
    corpus relief was frivolous.
    The scope of the PCRA’s eligibility requirements is to be construed
    broadly in accordance with the legislature’s intent to provide a unitary
    system for collateral relief. See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 
    598 Pa. 350
    ,
    363, 
    956 A.2d 978
    , 986 (2008), cert. denied 
    129 S.Ct. 2772
    , 
    174 L.Ed.2d 277
     (2009).     As such, the PCRA subsumes state habeas corpus claims so
    long as the PCRA provides a possible remedy for the claim. See 
    id.,
     
    598 Pa. at 362
    , 
    956 A.2d at 985-986
    .
    In the present case, Hoffman’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
    requested the following relief:    “that a writ of habeas corpus be issued,
    -2-
    J-S32009-14
    directing the superintendent of the State Correctional Institute at Somerset
    deliver the relator before the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County,
    and that the relator’s conviction be vacated and he be discharged from
    custody.” Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 3/7/13, at 4. A review of the
    allegations in his filing indicates that he requests this relief because he
    believes that trial counsel was ineffective for admitting, in his opening
    statement at trial, that Hoffman killed his wife, Tammy Hoffman. This claim
    is cognizable pursuant to the PCRA, and therefore the PCRA court properly
    treated the filing as a PCRA petition.           See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §
    9543(a)(2)(ii); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 
    868 A.2d 1278
    , 1281 (Pa.
    Super. 2005).        Furthermore, Hoffman neither pleads nor argues any
    exception to the time bar contained in the PCRA. Since the current petition
    is patently untimely, the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to grant Hoffman’s
    requested relief.1
    Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    ____________________________________________
    1
    A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date that the
    judgment of sentence becomes final.            See 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. §
    9545(b)(1). In the present case, Hoffman’s judgment of sentence became
    final on Wednesday, August 30, 2000, 90 days after the expiration of time
    for filing an application for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of
    Pennsylvania’s June 1, 2000, order with the Supreme Court of the United
    States. See 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9545(b)(3); U.S. Supreme Court Rule
    13 As such, Hoffman had until August 30, 2001, to file a timely PCRA
    petition.
    -3-
    J-S32009-14
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/5/2014
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 642 WDA 2013

Filed Date: 8/5/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014