Com. v. Hall, C. ( 2022 )

J-S12028-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER R. HALL :
:
Appellant : No. 1816 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 6, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CP-0001786-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MAY 20, 2022
Christopher R. Hall appeals pro se from the order denying his petition
for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).
We remand for a supplemental Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
On January 10, 2018, Appellant was apprehended outside of a hotel in
Montgomery County on an outstanding aggravated assault warrant. See N.T.
Guilty Plea Hearing – Vol. 1, 6/6/19, at 32. While clearing the hotel room in
which Appellant had been staying, police officers and U.S. Marshalls observed
drug paraphernalia and smelled burnt marijuana. The officer obtained a
search warrant for the room where they recovered a stolen and operable .380
Smith & Wesson firearm, approximately thirteen pounds of marijuana,
packaging materials, and various personal items belonging to Appellant. Id
at 32-33. Appellant was arrested and charged with possessing the firearm,
possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) marijuana, and related charges.
J-S12028-22
Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to person not to possess a
firearm and PWID. Id. at 4, 16-18. In exchange for his plea, the
Commonwealth withdrew the remaining charges and agreed to an aggregate
sentence of four to eight years of incarceration. Id. at 19; see also N.T.
Guilty Plea Hearing – Vol. 2, 6/10/19, at 10, 57-58. At the hearing, Appellant
admitted that he was planning to distribute the marijuana to others and that
he had a prior conviction that prohibited him from possessing or owning any
firearms. N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing – Vol. 1, 6/6/19, at 32-33. The trial court
accepted the plea and entered the agreed-upon sentence. Appellant did not
file a post-sentence motion or a direct appeal.
Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, raising multiple claims of
trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to file pretrial motions, advising him to
take the plea deal, and for failing to interview the police officers and detectives
involved in the execution of the search warrant. See PCRA petition, 3/19/20,
at 3-13. The PCRA court appointed counsel. However, Appellant requested
to proceed pro se and was allowed to do so following a Grazier hearing. See
Order, 8/3/20; see also Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa.
1998). The Commonwealth filed an answer to Appellant’s PCRA petition and
Appellant filed a response. Afterwards, the PCRA court issued notice pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing.
Appellant filed a response to the Rule 907 notice. On May 6, 2021, the PCRA
court dismissed the petition after reviewing Appellant’s response. In the
dismissal order, the Court advised Appellant that he had the right to appeal
-2-
J-S12028-22
to the Superior Court pro se or through privately retained counsel within thirty
days. See Order, 5/6/21. The order was served on Appellant through certified
mail. Id.On May 17, 2021, Appellant mailed a document styled as a “concise
statement of matter complained of on appeal pursuant to PCRA.” See Concise
Statement, 5/17/21, at 1. Therein, Appellant listed nine issues he wished to
raise on appeal, including a challenge to the PCRA court’s decision to deny his
petition without a hearing. Id. at 1-2. Appellant concluded the filing by
certifying that he had sent the concise statement by certified mail to the
Montgomery County clerk or courts and the Superior Court Prothonotary.
However, it was the PCRA court that received the mailing and sent it to the
clerk of courts, where it was docketed. Id. at 3.
On August 31, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in which
Appellant indicated that this was his second notice of appeal from the order
denying his PCRA petition. Appellant explained that he was filing a second
notice of appeal because his first was never docketed. Appellant attached
proof of service from the United States Postal Service that indicated he had
sent mail to the PCRA court judge and the Superior Court in May of 2021. The
dates of receipt coincided with the filing of Appellant’s concise statement,
which Appellant later re-filed in the PCRA court.
We issued rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as
untimely. In response, Appellant argued that he had sent his notice of appeal
directly to the PCRA court at the time that he submitted his concise statement,
-3-
J-S12028-22
but that the PCRA court judge had “used his discretion and did not file the
appeal.” See Rule to Show Cause Response, 11/9/21. In support of his
argument, Appellant attached the same proof of service exhibits that he had
included with his notice of appeal. Id. Appellant’s response was taken under
advisement and deferred to this merits panel.
On January 6, 2022, the PCRA court issued its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion, in which it opined that Appellant’s appeal should be quashed as
untimely filed. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/6/22, at 1. The PCRA court
explained that it had received Appellant’s concise statement within the
timeframe that Appellant had to file a timely notice of appeal and had promptly
forwarded it to the clerk of courts for filing. Id. at 2. However, “a notice of
appeal did not accompany [the concise statement] and no notice was
forwarded to this [c]ourt from the Superior Court.” Id. Deeming the appeal
untimely, the PCRA court thus did not address the merits of Appellant’s claims.
Instead, the court noted that it would welcome a remand to prepare a
supplemental opinion if we determined that the appeal could proceed. Id. at
3 n.4.
Before we consider the seven allegations of error Appellant raises in this
Court, we must first address the timeliness of Appellant’s notice of appeal, as
it implicates our jurisdiction to review his claims. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
903(a), “the notice of appeal. . . shall be filed within [thirty] days after the
entry of the order form which the appeal is taken.” It is well-settled that the
timeliness of an appeal implicates our jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v.
-4-
J-S12028-22
Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa.Super. 2014) (“Time limitations for taking
appeals are strictly construed and cannot be extended as a matter of grace.”)
Here, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s PCRA petition on May 6, 2021.
The May 17, 2021 document styled as a concise statement was the only filing
received during the thirty-day period. Accordingly, whether the appeal was
timely turns on how we construe the May 17, 2021 document.
Rule 904 of our Rules of Appellate Procedure provides a template for
appellants to follow in drafting a notice of appeal. In order to qualify as a
notice of appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 904, a document must, at a minimum, evince
a desire to appeal. In the event of a defective notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902
allows the court to permit the correction of non-jurisdictional defects where
“appropriate.” Thus, it encourages appellate courts to remand the matter to
the lower court so that the procedural defect may be remedied. This is
because “[a] timely notice of appeal triggers the jurisdiction of the appellate
court, notwithstanding whether the notice of appeal is otherwise defective.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583, 587 (Pa. 2014) (“nothing
practical is achieved by the reflexive quashal of appeal for easily corrected,
non-jurisdictional defects”). Accordingly, the rules create a preference for
correcting procedurally and substantively defective, albeit timely, notices of
appeal so that appellate courts may reach the merits of timely appeals. See
Pa.R.A.P. 902, Note.
As noted above, the document filed by Appellant on May 17, 2021 was
styled as a “concise statement of matter complained of on appeal pursuant to
-5-
J-S12028-22
PCRA.” See Concise Statement, 5/17/21, at 1. However, within the document
Appellant listed nine issues he wished to raise on appeal. Additionally,
Appellant’s first issue referenced the order denying his PCRA petition. Id.(arguing that the PCRA court committed reversible error by denying his PCRA
petition without a hearing). Id. at 1. Thus, despite its incorrect styling, the
text of Appellant’s May filing undoubtedly should have put the court and the
Clerk on notice that Appellant intended to appeal.
Accordingly, the Clerk should have time-stamped Appellant’s timely
notice of appeal, even assuming it was defective, and then informed Appellant
of the errors identified in the filing. The Clerk’s failure to do so contravenes
the directive in Rule 905(a)(3) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, requiring
the clerk of the lower court to time-stamp notices of appeal immediately upon
receipt. For these reasons, we find that Appellant perfected his appeal
pursuant to Rule 902 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court has
jurisdiction over this timely appeal. Since Appellant already remedied the
initial defective notice of appeal, we remand so that the PCRA court may issue
a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing the merits of the issues
Appellant wished to raise.
Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.
-6-