Com. v. Gonzalez, S. ( 2020 )

J-S13007-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SAMUEL GONZALEZ
Appellant No. 456 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 6, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-38-CR-0000632-2004; CP-38-CR-0000633-
2004; and CP-38-CR-0000987-2004
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2020
Appellant Samuel Gonzalez pro se appeals from the March 6, 2019 order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County (“PCRA Court”),
which dismissed as untimely his third petition for collateral relief under the
Post Conviction Relief Act (the “PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. Upon
review, we affirm.
On December 8, 2004, a jury found Appellant guilty of committing
multiple sexual offenses against two minors: his daughter and a former
neighbor. On February 10, 2005, another jury convicted him of committing
multiple sexual offenses against a different minor who was a friend of
Appellant’s family. The trial court consolidated the cases for sentencing. On
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13007-20
October 25, 2005, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 14
to 30 years’ imprisonment and determined him to be sexually violent predator
(SVP) under Megan’s law.
On October 16, 2006, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of
sentence, and on May 25, 2007, our Supreme Court denied his petition for
allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 913 A.2d 941 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 926 A.2d 441(Pa. 2007).
On May 21, 2008, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition, arguing that his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) call witnesses to contradict
prosecution witnesses, (2) call character witnesses, and (3) object to evidence
procured by Lebanon County Children and Youth Services. On November 18,
2008, the PCRA court denied the petition. Appellant did not appeal the denial.
On January 10, 2018, Appellant pro se filed two petitions—one
requesting the withdrawal of prior counsel and the appointment of alternative
counsel, and another seeking the transcripts from his PCRA hearing. Appellant
filed three more petitions on March 8, 2018, one to proceed in forma pauperis,
a second for withdrawal of counsel, and third for an evidentiary hearing in the
event that his other petitions were not granted. On March 21, 2018, the PCRA
court denied Appellant’s requests for transcripts, an evidentiary hearing, and
-2-
J-S13007-20
in forma pauperis status, characterizing these three requests as an untimely
petition for PCRA relief.1
On March 23, 2018, Appellant pro se filed a second PCRA petition,
arguing that Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), entitled
him to relief from SORNA’s registration requirements and his designation as
an SVP. The petition was denied. On February 27, 2019, Appellant pro se
filed the instant—his third—PCRA petition, alleging abandonment by all prior
counsels. On March 6, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed as untimely his third
petition. In the order, the trial court advised Appellant that “he has thirty (30)
days from today’s date in which to file an appeal of this decision with the
Pennsylvania Superior Court.” PCRA Court Order, 3/6/19 at 4 (emphasis
added). Appellant appealed. The PCRA court directed Appellant to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant
complied, raising three assertions of error:
[1.] Did the court err in failing to determine that [Appellant]
suffered abandonment of counsel for appeal where [Appellant] did
not speak English at the time?
[2.] Did the court err in failing to determine if one who does not
speak English or spoke very little was denied assistance of counsel
for the purpose of appeal, and that the trial court failed to make
a factual determination?
[3.] Did the trial court err in failing to make a determination
regarding the right of appeal where [Appellant] did not speak
English, where counsel failed to confer with [Appellant] (through
an interpreter), where the court only looked at the length of time,
and where the court never considered [Appellant’s] inability to
____________________________________________
1 On appeal, we determined that Appellant waived his challenge to the March
21, 2018 order. Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 203 A.3d 315 (Pa. Super.
filed December 13, 2018) (unpublished memorandum).
-3-
J-S13007-20
speak the English language and counsel did not speak flaunt [sic]
Spanish? And was [Appellant’s] constitutional right of appeal
denied under these circumstances?
Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/4/19 (unnecessary capitalization omitted) (sic).
In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding that
Appellant was not entitled to relief on his untimely PCRA petition. The court
further determined that, even if the petition were not untimely, Appellant’s
claim that he could not speak or understand English was waived. He could
have raised this claim previously, but failed to do so. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9544(b) (an issue is waived “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to
do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state
postconviction proceeding.”).
On appeal,2 Appellant presents a single, compound issue for our review.
[I.] Did the trial court err in failing to make a determination
regarding the right of appeal. Was the standard of review followed
where, no hearing was held for a factual determination. And
Appellant has consistently asked the trial court to protect his right
of appeal, due to abandonment or ineffective assistance of
counsel. Did counsel abandon Appellant or was ineffective
regarding protecting his right of appeal.
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
At the outset, we note that Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from
the March 6 order that resolved issues relating to three different docket
numbers. On May 2, 2019, we issued a rule to show cause why the instant
____________________________________________
2“In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court’s
determination ‘is supported by the record and free of legal error.’”
Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 223 (Pa. 2007)).
-4-
J-S13007-20
appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). Following Appellant’s response, we discharged the
show-cause order.
We have explained:
our Supreme Court held–unequivocally–that prospectively, where
a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket,
separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case. The
Supreme Court observed that the Official Note to Rule 341 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides a bright-line
mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of
appeal, and accordingly, determined that the failure to do so
requires the appellate court to quash the appeal. Because this
mandate was contrary to decades of case law, the Supreme Court
specified that the requirement would apply only to appeals filed
after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed.
Commonwealth v. Nichols, 208 A.3d 1087, 1089 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted; emphasis removed).
Upon review, however, we decline to quash the instant appeal as the
defect in conforming with Walker resulted from Appellant “acting in
accordance with misinformation relayed to him by the trial court.”
Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019). In
Stansbury, our Court declined to quash an appeal pursuant to Walker where
a defendant filed one notice of appeal listing multiple docket numbers. Id. at
158. There, as here, the trial court advised a pro se defendant to file “a
written notice of appeal to the Superior Court” from a single trial court
order listing multiple docket numbers under a single caption. Id. at 159
(emphasis in original). We concluded that the trial court had misinformed the
defendant, which amounted to a “breakdown in the court system” and excused
-5-
J-S13007-20
the defendant’s lack of compliance with Walker. Id. at 160. Accordingly, the
instant appeal is properly before us.
Before we may address the merits of this appeal, we must determine
whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA
petition. The PCRA contains the following restrictions governing the timeliness
of any PCRA petition.
(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 one year of the date the claim could have been
presented.
(3) For purposes of this subchapter, 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
review.
-6-
J-S13007-20
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). Section 9545’s timeliness provisions are
jurisdictional. Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173, 177 (Pa. 2014).
Additionally, we have emphasized repeatedly that “the PCRA confers no
authority upon this Court to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA
time-bar in addition to those exceptions expressly delineated in the Act.”
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157, 1161 (Pa. 2003) (citations
omitted).
Here, the record reflects that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied
Appellant’s petition of allowance of appeal on May 25, 2007. Appellant had
up to ninety days or until August 25, 2007, to file a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d
585, 587 (Pa. 2000); U.S. Sup.Ct. R. 13 (petitioner has ninety days from
judgment of sentence to file for writ of certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court).
Because Appellant did not file a writ of certiorari, his judgment became final
on August 25, 2008. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).
Accordingly, Appellant’s current filing is facially untimely given it was filed on
February 27, 2019, more than ten years late.
The one-year time limitation, however, can be overcome if a petitioner
alleges and proves one of the three exceptions set forth in Section
9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) of the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d
714, 719 (Pa. 2008). Here, Appellant has failed to allege, let alone prove, at
any stage of the proceeding any exceptions to the one-year time bar.
-7-
J-S13007-20
Accordingly, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing as untimely his third
PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 06/03/2020
-8-