Com. v. Hayes, D. ( 2018 )

J-S34019-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DAVON RENEE HAYES
Appellant No. 1617 WDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order Filed October 2, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-02-CR-0014894-2003; CP-02-CR-0001018-
2004
BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2018
Appellant Devon Renee Hayes pro se appeals from the October 2, 2017
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which dismissed as
untimely his “Motion for Leave to File Newly Discovered Exculpatory Evidence
and Preserve Rights for of (sic) Newly-Discovered and Exculpatory Evidence,”
which the court treated as a petition for collateral relief under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-56. Upon review, we
affirm.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. Briefly,
Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with the shooting
death of William Anderson during an armed robbery of a store in the East
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S34019-18
Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Following the expiration of the 90-day
period within which Appellant could seek certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on July 8,
2008.1 After the denial of his first two PCRA petitions, Appellant filed his third
PCRA petition on October 7, 2016, which the PCRA court denied on November
16, 2016. Appellant appealed to this Court. During the pendency of his
appeal, Appellant filed with the PCRA court the instant “Motion for Leave to
File Newly Discovered Exculpatory Evidence and Preserve Rights for of (sic)
Newly-Discovered and Exculpatory Evidence [(“Motion”)].” Treating it as his
fourth petition for collateral relief, the PCRA court dismissed as untimely the
motion on October 2, 2017. Appellant pro se timely appealed to this Court.
Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2017, this Court affirmed the denial
of Appellant’s third PCRA petition. On September 5, 2018, our Supreme Court
____________________________________________
1 Appellant filed a direct appeal in this Court asserting that the trial court erred
in refusing to suppress statements made during a police interview. We
affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Hayes, 918 A.2d
786 (Pa. Super. filed December 21, 2006) (unpublished memorandum). Our
Supreme Court granted in part Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal and
the case was remanded to this Court to consider Appellant’s claim that his
confession should have been suppressed because his waiver of rights under
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was neither knowing nor
voluntary. Commonwealth v. Hayes, 926 A.2d 925 (Pa. 2007). On remand,
we affirmed the judgment of sentence after determining that Appellant’s
confession was knowingly and voluntarily made. Appellant filed another
petition for allowance of appeal, which our Supreme Court denied on April 9,
2008. Commonwealth v. Hayes, 943 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. filed October
30, 2007) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 685 (Pa.
2008).
-2-
J-S34019-18
denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v.
Hayes, No. 60 WAL 2018, 2018 WL 4214636 (Pa. 2018).
On appeal,2 Appellant raises a single issue for our review. He argues
that the PCRA court erred in treating the Motion as his fourth PCRA petition.
Appellant’s Motion, filed while his third PCRA appeal was pending in this Court,
constituted an effort by Appellant to preserve a filing date in the trial court so
that he could, at a later time, file a petition to raise an issue of after-discovered
evidence. In filing the Motion, Appellant sought to toll the 60-day period for
raising a claim premised on after-discovered evidence, as required by 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). He also correctly recognized that he is barred from
filing another PCRA petition while a prior petition is pending on appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000).
At the outset, we note that when Appellant filed the Motion, he did so
without identifying any legal authority upon which the Motion was premised.
Indeed, even on this appeal, Appellant fails to cite any authority, within or
outside of the PCRA, that permits him to toll the 60-day period for raising a
claim of after-discovered evidence before filing any such claim. Additionally,
our research does not yield any case law, statute or rule that supports the
filing of a motion to reserve a filing date for a later pleading on collateral
____________________________________________
2“In PCRA proceedings, an appellate court’s scope of review is limited by the
PCRA’s parameters; since most PCRA appeals involve mixed questions of fact
and law, the standard of review is whether the PCRA court’s findings are
supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Pitts,
981 A.2d 875, 878 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted).
-3-
J-S34019-18
review. Thus, given the unorthodox nature of the Motion, we need not decide
whether the Motion would qualify as Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition or
otherwise be subject to the PCRA, as we affirm dismissal of the Motion on its
merits. See Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(noting that we may affirm a lower court’s decision on any basis), appeal
denied, 830 A.2d 975 (Pa. 2003).
Even assuming that the Motion was Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition, it
still would have been a nullity under Lark. As we recently explained:
In [Lark], our Supreme Court held that “a subsequent PCRA
petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of the
pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review
is sought, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking such
review.” Id. at 588. Our Supreme Court reasoned that “[a]
second appeal cannot be taken when another proceeding of the
same type is already pending.” Id. (citation omitted). Where a
petitioner attempts to raise a subsequent, independent claim for
relief during the pendency of an earlier PCRA petition, his or her
“only option is to raise it within a second PCRA petition within [60]
days of the date of the order that finally resolves the [pending]
PCRA petition[.]” Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 961
A.2d 786, 908-809 (2008).
Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 363 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en
banc).3 As noted, Appellant’s third PCRA petition was pending in this Court
____________________________________________
3 The 60-day requirement is limited to exceptions set forth in Section
9545(b)(1) of the PCRA. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would not
overcome the jurisdictional timeliness requirements of the PCRA. See
Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1127 (Pa. 2005); see also
Commonwealth v. Howard, 788 A.2d 351, 355 (Pa. 2002) (“The timeliness
requirements crafted by the legislature would thus effectively be eviscerated
by any petitioner who was willing to file serial PCRA petitions alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel.”) (citations omitted).
-4-
J-S34019-18
when he filed the Motion. Thus, assuming the Motion was his fourth PCRA
petition, it was a legal nullity under Lark.
Lastly, irrespective of whether the Motion was Appellant’s fourth PCRA
petition, as mentioned earlier, our Supreme Court on September 5, 2018
denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal in connection with his third
PCRA petition. As a result, consistent with Lark, Appellant has 60 days from
the September 5, 2018 denial of his petition for allowance of appeal to assert
a timely after-discovered evidence claim. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA
court’s dismissal of the Motion.4
Appeal affirmed. Application for relief denied.
Judge Strassburger files a concurring memorandum in which Judge
Stabile joins.
Judge Bowes files a concurring and dissenting memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/25/2018
____________________________________________
4Appellant’s October 5, 2018 “Application for Status of Appeal” is denied as
moot.
-5-