Com. v. James, W. ( 2023 )

J-S30038-23
ON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
WAYNE JAMES, :
:
Appellant :
:
: No. 1669 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014092-2011
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
WAYNE JAMES, :
:
Appellant :
:
: No. 1670 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014093-2011
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
WAYNE JAMES, :
:
Appellant :
:
: No. 1672 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014094-2011
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-S30038-23
v. :
:
WAYNE JAMES, :
:
Appellant :
:
: No. 1674 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014095-2011
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
WAYNE JAMES, :
:
Appellant :
:
: No. 1675 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014096-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 6, 2023
Wayne James (“James”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his
petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.2
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 Because James filed five notices of appeal, we decline to quash this appeal
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), because
each notice of appeal listed all five docket numbers. See Commonwealth v.
Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). Although this
appeal involves multiple cases, we refer mostly to the materials in the
singular.
-2-
J-S30038-23
On June 26, 2011, James entered the Genesis Bar and ordered a drink.
While he was having a second drink and smoking a cigarette at the bar, a bar
security employee asked him to leave. James refused. A bouncer carried him
out of the bar. As he sped off in his car, James declared that he would return.
Ten or fifteen minutes later, James returned and opened fire as he approached
the bar. His bullets hit a security guard stationed outside. James entered the
bar and fired additional gunshots. Carl Sharper died instantly from a bullet to
his forehead; at least four other people suffered gunshot wounds. In October
2013, a jury found James, who represented himself at trial, guilty of first-
degree murder, and four counts of aggravated assault. In February 2015, this
Court affirmed James’s judgments of sentence. See Commonwealth v.
James, 120 A.3d 380, 2015 WL 7586986 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished
memorandum at *1-3). The Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. See
Commonwealth v. James, 121 A.3d 495 (Pa. 2015).
On March 11, 2016, James filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court
appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition. In July 2019, the
court dismissed the petition. On November 4, 2019, this court quashed the
appeal as untimely. See Commonwealth v. James, --- A.3d ---, No. 2508
EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 2019).
In November 2019, James filed a pro se petition to file a notice of appeal
nunc pro tunc from the dismissal of his first PCRA petition but withdrew his
request to reinstate his appeal from his first PCRA petition. He then filed a
-3-
J-S30038-23
pro se PCRA petition – alleging unspecified governmental interference and
newly-discovered evidence possibly contained in one of the victim’s medical
records, sent the court an August 2020 letter referencing an aggravated
assault victim’s medical records, and filed an October 2022 pro se PCRA
petition that did not assert the existence of any time-bar exception. In March
2022, the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 to which James did not file a response. In May 2022, the
PCRA court dismissed James’s petition as untimely. James and the PCRA court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, James presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether[] [James] was denied a fair trial under the Sixth
Amendment due to the district attorney’s assistant[’s] . . . failure
to fulfill his duty to disclose the full and complete record?
2. Whether [James] was denied a fair trial because [the assistant
district attorney] failed to mark into evidence as he said:
“Voluminous Documents” . . . because as he said . . . “I can’t try
a case with somebody that doesn’t know the law” . . . constitutes
an arbitrary action by a government official?
3. Did an unconstitutional break-down occur[] during [James’s]
pre-trial, trial, post-sentence, direct appeal, and collateral
proceedings facts [sic] under this rule[] evidence which is the
direct result or immediate product of illegal conduct on the part of
the official, under the equal protection of the laws clause of the
fourteenth amendment den[]y [James] a fair trial?
James’s Brief at I.3
____________________________________________
3 Although the cover of James’s appellate brief mentions “The Great Writ of
Liberty Ancillary Habeas Corpus,” his appeal lies from the denial of PCRA relief
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S30038-23
Our standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is well-
settled:
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.
This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the
evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it
is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This
Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the
record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the
factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those
findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we
afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the
petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de
novo and our scope of review plenary.
____________________________________________
and we address his claims under the PCRA. The PCRA subsumes the writ of
habeas corpus to the extent that the grounds on which the relief sought falls
within the scope of claims for which the PCRA could offer a remedy. See
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2013). The
determination of whether a post-conviction claim is properly assessed as a
habeas corpus claim or under the PCRA is as follows:
It is well-settled that the PCRA is intended to be the sole means
of achieving post-conviction relief. Unless the PCRA could not
provide for a potential remedy, the PCRA statute subsumes the
writ of habeas corpus. Issues that are cognizable under the PCRA
must be raised in a timely PCRA petition and cannot be raised in
a habeas corpus petition. Phrased differently, a defendant cannot
escape the PCRA time-bar by titling his petition or motion as a writ
of habeas corpus.
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465-66 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal
citations and footnote omitted). Because James’s claims of ineffectiveness,
prosecutorial misconduct, and denial of a fair trial, if presented timely and
meritorious would merit PCRA relief, habeas relief is unavailable. See
Commonwealth v. Moore, 247 A.3d 990, 998 (Pa. 2021) (stating habeas
corpus is not available where the claim would have been cognizable under the
PCRA if raised timely). Thus, the PCRA court properly regarded James’s filings
as PCRA petitions.
-5-
J-S30038-23
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
omitted).4
Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the
petitioner explicitly pleads and proves one of three exceptions set forth under
section 9545(b)(1), which provides:
(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
____________________________________________
4 A judgment of sentence 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. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
James’s judgment of sentence became final on November 10, 2015, ninety
days after the August 12, 2015 denial of his petition for Pennsylvania Supreme
Court review when his time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari expired.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13.1. James had
until November 10, 2016, to file the instant PCRA petition, but did not do so
until February 2020. Thus, James’s petition is facially untimely under the
PCRA, precluding review of the merits of the issues raised in the petition,
absent a time-bar exception. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d
1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).
-6-
J-S30038-23
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided
in this section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A PCRA court has no jurisdiction to entertain an
untimely PCRA petition unless he can plead and prove a time-bar exception
and the exercise of due diligence in discovering his claim. See
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 784 (Pa. 2000); 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
James denies the facts that produced his convictions, and asserts the
Commonwealth withheld trial transcripts, “induced hysteria” in two witnesses,
and withheld hospital records for one of the shooting victims. See James’s
Brief at vi-xxi.
The PCRA court found James failed to meaningfully plead or prove a
time-bar exception. The court noted that James acknowledged the time-bar
in correspondence in August 2020, where he asserted that an aggravated
assault victim’s medical records constituted newly-discovered evidence. The
court rejected the asserted time-bar exception because it contained only
vague and unsupported allegations, and concluded it lacked jurisdiction over
the petition. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/28/22, at 2.
We perceive no error of law in the PCRA court’s ruling. James failed to
plead and offer to prove a time-bar exception in his filings, precluding
appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1126
(Pa. 2005). To the extent James suggested the Commonwealth withheld an
-7-
J-S30038-23
aggravated assault victim’s medical records, he failed to plead he acted with
due diligence in discovering the alleged withheld medical records or that they
contained previously unknown facts. See id; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§9545(b)(1), (2). To the extent James asserts the Commonwealth withheld
the trial transcripts, James failed to preserve this issue in his pleadings. See
Pa.R.A.P 302(a). Because James failed to state a time-bar exception, the
PCRA court properly dismissed his claims. See Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.3d at
784.
Order affirmed.
Date: 10/6/2023
-8-