Com. v. Patterson, J. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • J. S37033/20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :           PENNSYLVANIA
    v.                   :
    :
    JOSEPH PATTERSON,                        :         No. 1979 EDA 2019
    :
    Appellant       :
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 27, 2019,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0006519-2012
    BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:             Filed: December 30, 2020
    Joseph Patterson appeals from the June 27, 2019 order entered by the
    Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing his petition for relief
    filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A.
    §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we quash.
    On September 18, 2012, appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea,
    wherein he pled guilty to one count each of attempted murder and possession
    of an instrument of crime.1 Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated guilty
    plea agreement, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 12-24 years’
    imprisonment, with mental health treatment as needed. Appellant did not
    seek direct appellate review.
    1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a) and 907(a), respectively.
    J. S37033/20
    On August 22, 2013, appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. On
    February 10, 2017, the PCRA court appointed Peter A. Levin, Esq., to
    represent appellant.    Attorney Levin filed an amended PCRA petition on
    appellant’s behalf on October 18, 2017. The PCRA court subsequently held an
    evidentiary hearing on January 31, 2019. On March 15, 2019, the PCRA court
    entered an order       dismissing   appellant’s   PCRA petition and    granting
    Attorney Levin leave to withdraw. The PCRA court then vacated its March 15,
    2019 order on June 27, 2019. That same day, the PCRA court entered an
    order dismissing appellant’s PCRA petition.
    Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 12, 2019. The PCRA court
    ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
    pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and appellant timely complied. The PCRA court
    subsequently filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
    Before we can address the merits of appellant’s appeal, we must first
    determine whether we have jurisdiction to do so. Indeed, we may raise a
    jurisdictional issue sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Parker, 
    173 A.3d 294
    ,
    296 (Pa.Super. 2017), citing Commonwealth v. Grove, 
    170 A.3d 1127
    ,
    1136-1137 (Pa.Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. Ivy, 
    146 A.3d 241
    , 255
    (Pa.Super. 2016).
    As our supreme court has observed:
    Once a PCRA petition has been decided and the ruling
    on it has become final, there is nothing for a
    subsequent petition or pleading to “extend.” Far from
    continuing in perpetuity, the trial court’s jurisdiction
    -2-
    J. S37033/20
    over a matter generally ends once an appeal is taken
    from a final order or, if no appeal is taken, thirty days
    elapse after the final order. See 42 Pa.C.S.[A.]
    § 5505 (“Modification of orders: Except as otherwise
    provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to
    the parties may modify or rescind any order within
    30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior
    termination of any term of court, if no appeal from
    such order has been taken or allowed.”).
    Commonwealth v. Robinson, 
    837 A.2d 1157
    , 1162 (Pa. 2003) (emphasis
    added).
    This court, however, has recognized that there are some instances in
    which a final order may be altered beyond 30 days of entry.
    The power to modify a sentence in order to amend
    records, to correct mistakes of court officers or
    counsel’s inadvertencies, or to supply defects or
    omissions in the record is inherent in our court
    system. Commonwealth v. Fiore, [] 
    491 A.2d 276
               ([Pa.Super.] 1985).       A sentencing court can,
    sua sponte, correct an illegal sentence originally
    imposed, even after the defendant has begun serving
    the original sentence. Commonwealth v. Jones, []
    
    554 A.2d 50
    ([Pa.] 1989).           Where an initial
    punishment was procured by fraud, the trial court may
    decrease or increase the initial sentence.
    Id. Commonwealth v. Myer,
    [] 
    82 A.2d 298
               ([Pa.Super.] 1951). This inherent power of the court
    to correct obvious and patent mistakes is not
    eliminated by the expiration of the thirty-day appeal
    period. Commonwealth v. Cole, [] 
    263 A.2d 339
               ([Pa.] 1970). In Cole, the Pennsylvania Supreme
    Court explained that an order granting both a new trial
    and an arrest of judgment was clearly contradictory;
    thus, the original order was patently erroneous and
    could be corrected even after the thirty days had
    passed.
    Id. -3-
    J. S37033/20
    Commonwealth v. Harper, 
    890 A.2d 1078
    , 1082 (Pa.Super. 2006), quoting
    Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 
    639 A.2d 1235
    , 1239 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal
    dismissed as improvidently granted, 
    675 A.2d 711
    (Pa. 1996).
    In the instant case, there is no evidence of record that the PCRA court’s
    March 15, 2019 order was the product of fraud, nor is there any evidence of
    record indicating that the March 15, 2019 order was contradictory or was
    vacated to correct any obvious or patent mistakes. On October 22, 2020, this
    court directed the PCRA court to file a supplemental Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion
    explaining why it vacated its March 15, 2019 order on June 27, 2019, and
    then immediately entered the same dismissal order with the later date. The
    PCRA court has not complied with our directive. Since the appeal presently
    before this court is clearly untimely, we quash the appeal.
    Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Shogan, J. joins this Memorandum.
    Nichols, J. notes dissent.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/30/20
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1979 EDA 2019

Filed Date: 12/30/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/30/2020