Com. v. Taylor, Jr., B. ( 2014 )

J-S54027-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BRUCE ALLEN TAYLOR, JR.
Appellant No. 2290 MDA 2013
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 4, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-08-CR-0000954-2007
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
Appellant, Bruce Allen Taylor, Jr, appeals from the December 4, 2013
order dismissing as untimely his amended petition for relief filed pursuant to
the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After
careful review, we affirm.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this case were set forth
by a prior panel of this Court on direct appeal, as follows.
[T]his case began on or about November 5,
2007, when a police criminal complaint was filed,
charging [A]ppellant with one count of failure to
comply with registration of sexual offenders
requirements.[1] Thereafter, [A]ppellant waived his
preliminary hearing on November 20, 2007, and an
arraignment was scheduled for December 12, 2007.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915(a)(1).
J-S54027-14
After negotiations with the district attorney,
[A]ppellant agreed to plead guilty to the single count
for a sentence the minimum of which would be at the
bottom of the standard range of the sentencing
guidelines, and the maximum of which would be left
open to the [trial] court.
On February 11, 2008, [A]ppellant entered his
plea before the [trial] court. On March 17, 2008, the
trial court sentenced [A]ppellant to undergo
imprisonment for a period of not less than seventeen
(17) months nor more than ten (10) years. The
standard range of the sentencing guidelines was
fifteen (15) to twenty-one (21) months for a
minimum sentence. Appellant did not seek to
withdraw his guilty plea, despite the [trial] court not
sentencing him at the bottom of the standard
guidelines.
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 974 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished
memorandum at 2-3, quoting Anders Brief at 9) (original footnote omitted).
On March 20, 2008, Appellant filed a motion to modify his sentence,
which was denied by the trial court on June 20, 2008. On June 30, 2008,
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and his judgment of sentence was
affirmed by a panel of this Court on April 1, 2009. See id. Appellant did not
file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. Appellant
was represented at sentencing by Helen Stolinas, Esquire (Attorney
Stolinas), and on appeal by Chad Salsman, Esquire (Attorney Salsman).
On March 22, 2012, Appellant filed a two-page, handwritten pro se
Appellant filed a
pro se PCRA petition, and the PCRA court appointed Richard R. Jennings,
-2-
J-S54027-14
Esquire (Attorney Jennings) to represent Appellant. On August 1, 2013,
hearing was scheduled for October 4, 2013. Thereafter, Appellant and the
Commonwealth submitted briefs in support of their respective positions. On
Dece
petition, noting that said petition was untimely filed and that Appellant had
failed to plead any exceptions to the time-bar. See PCRA Court Order,
12/4/13. Thereafter, Attorney Jennings fil
behalf on December 26, 2013.2
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.
[1.] Whether the [PCRA court] erred in determining
[2.] Whether the [PCRA court] erred in determining
that [Appellant] had no exceptions to the PCRA
filing time limit under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.
§] 9545(b)(1)?
On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of
review is limited to determining wh
supported by the record and without legal error. Commonwealth v.
____________________________________________
2
The record reflects that Appellant was not ordered to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Nonetheless, on April 24, 2014, the PCRA court filed a two-paragraph Rule
petition as untimely.
-3-
J-S54027-14
Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied,
Edmiston v. Pennsylvania
is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record,
viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation
eterminations, when supported by
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d
de
novo Id.Before
consider the timeliness of his PCRA petition because it implicates the
jurisdiction of this Court and the PCRA court. Commonwealth v. Williams,
35 A.3d 44, 52 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 50 A.3d
Id.this Court to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA time-
Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).
Id.for relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be
filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final unless the
petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for
filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is
-4-
J-S54027-14
Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1199-1200 (Pa. Super.
2009), appeal denied, 982 A.2d 1227 (Pa. 2009). The Act provides, in
relevant part, as follows.
§ 9545. Jurisdiction and proceedings
(b) Time for filing petition.
(1) Any petition under this subchapter,
including a second or subsequent petition, shall
be filed within one year of the date the
judgment becomes final, unless the petition
alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(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.
(2) Any petition invoking an exception
provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within
60 days of the date the claim could have been
presented.
-5-
J-S54027-14
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b).
In the instant matter, Appellant was sentenced on March 17, 2008. As
2009, and Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our
Supreme Court. See Taylor, supra
sentence became final on May 1, 2009, 30 days after this Court affirmed his
judgment of sentence and when the time to file a petition for allowance of
appeal with our Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3)
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 time for seeking
the revie ; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) (stating,
. Therefore, in order
to be filed by May 3, 2010.3 As
noted, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on April 1, 2013, and an
____________________________________________
3
We note that May 1, 2010 fell on a Saturday. Pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 1908, when the last day of a calculated period of time falls on a Saturday
or Sunday, as was the case here, such day shall be omitted from the
computation in determining the timeliness of a filed PCRA petition.
-6-
J-S54027-14
Esquire (Attorney Jennings) to represent Appellant. On August 1, 2013,
hearing was scheduled for October 4, 2013. Thereafter, Appellant and the
Commonwealth submitted briefs in support of their respective positions. On
Dece
petition, noting that said petition was untimely filed and that Appellant had
failed to plead any exceptions to the time-bar. See PCRA Court Order,
12/4/13. Thereafter, Attorney Jennings fil
behalf on December 26, 2013.2
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.
[1.] Whether the [PCRA court] erred in determining
[2.] Whether the [PCRA court] erred in determining
that [Appellant] had no exceptions to the PCRA
filing time limit under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.
§] 9545(b)(1)?
On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of
review is limited to determining wh
supported by the record and without legal error. Commonwealth v.
____________________________________________
2
The record reflects that Appellant was not ordered to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Nonetheless, on April 24, 2014, the PCRA court filed a two-paragraph Rule
petition as untimely.
-3-
J-S54027-14
Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied,
Edmiston v. Pennsylvania
is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record,
viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation
eterminations, when supported by
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d
de
novo Id.Before
consider the timeliness of his PCRA petition because it implicates the
jurisdiction of this Court and the PCRA court. Commonwealth v. Williams,
35 A.3d 44, 52 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 50 A.3d
Id.this Court to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA time-
Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).
Id.for relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be
filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final unless the
petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for
filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is
-4-
J-S54027-14
Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1199-1200 (Pa. Super.
2009), appeal denied, 982 A.2d 1227 (Pa. 2009). The Act provides, in
relevant part, as follows.
§ 9545. Jurisdiction and proceedings
(b) Time for filing petition.
(1) Any petition under this subchapter,
including a second or subsequent petition, shall
be filed within one year of the date the
judgment becomes final, unless the petition
alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(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.
(2) Any petition invoking an exception
provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within
60 days of the date the claim could have been
presented.
-5-