Com. v. Bullock, D.

J-A27012-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DARRELL KENNETH BULLOCK :
:
Appellant : No. 298 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Dated December 31, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0001636-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 03, 2022
Darrell Bullock appeals from the order entered in the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas on January 3, 2020, dismissing, without a
hearing, his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),
42 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court denied Bullock’s petition for lack
of merit. As Bullock is no longer serving the sentence associated with this
petition at the time of this appeal, we are constrained to find Bullock is due
no relief. We therefore affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the PCRA
petition, albeit on different grounds.
The PCRA court accurately summarized the factual and procedural
history as follows.
On August 9, 2017, at approximately 8:03 p.m., authorities
responded to reports of an assault at 7 Voudy Road in Telford, PA.
Upon arrival at the scene, Trooper Kevin Kassel of the
Pennsylvania State Police made contact with Martin Brunges and
J-A27012-21
his wife Pat Brunges in their driveway at 5 Voudy Road. Trooper
Kassel observed that Mr. Brunges had a cut and was bleeding in
the area around his mouth. The trooper also observed blood
emanating from an area where Mr. Brunges had a tooth missing.
Mr. Brunges indicated that his dog had exited from his home and
ran on to [Bullock]’s driveway, where [Bullock]’s wife and dog
were returning from a walk. Mr. Brunges retrieved the dog and
reentered his home, but [Bullock]’s wife subsequently screamed
at Mr. Brunges to get his dog away from her driveway. Mr.
Brunges went outside and observed [Bullock] charging down his
own driveway and towards the Brunges' property. Following a
verbal confrontation, [Bullock] punched Mr. Brunges in the face,
causing him to fall to the ground. Mr. Brunges lost a tooth and
was transported to the hospital where he received ten stitches.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/2021, at 1-2.
After a jury trial, Bullock was found guilty of simple assault. Afterwards,
the trial court found Bullock guilty of the summary charge of harassment.
On January 22, 2019, the trial court imposed an agreed upon aggregate
sentence of one year of probation, twelve hours of community service, and
restitution in the amount of $3,011 to be paid within one year.
A week later, Bullock sent the trial court a pro se letter, in which he
raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court forwarded this
letter to trial counsel, who filed a petition to withdraw as counsel.
On February 7, 2019, the trial court entered an order scheduling an
evidentiary hearing regarding Bullock’s pro se letter, which the court
construed as a post-sentence motion, as well as the petition to withdraw. Two
weeks later, PCRA counsel entered his appearance and filed a premature
notice of appeal. PCRA counsel later filed a motion to withdraw the notice of
-2-
J-A27012-21
appeal, recognizing that it was premature due to the fact the trial court had
not yet ruled on the post-sentence motion. The trial court granted the motion.
On April 15, 2019, Bullock filed a timely PCRA petition, with the help of
new counsel (“PCRA counsel”), in which he raised a claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, he asserted trial counsel undercut
Bullock’s credibility by opening the door to prior bad acts evidence.
A judicial conference was held the next day, during which PCRA counsel
indicated Bullock would not be proceeding on his post-sentence motion due to
the recent filing of the PCRA petition. That same day, the court granted trial
counsel’s petition to withdraw.
A few days later, the court denied Bullock’s post-sentence motion as
moot and ordered the Commonwealth to file a response to Bullock’s PCRA
petition within 30 days. The Commonwealth thereafter filed an answer and a
motion to dismiss the PCRA petition. Bullock filed a response.
The PCRA court subsequently issued notice of its intent to dismiss the
petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On January 3, 2020,
after considering Bullock’s response to the Rule 907 notice, the PCRA court
dismissed the PCRA petition. This timely appeal followed.
Bullock is ineligible for PCRA relief. The PCRA clearly states that an
appellant not currently incarcerated or on probation or parole with regard to
the sentence for which PCRA relief is requested cannot establish eligibility for
PCRA relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9543(a)(1)(i). Our Supreme Court has upheld
-3-
J-A27012-21
this requirement even where the PCRA petitioner initially filed the petition
while still serving a sentence. See Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d
718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA petitioner who had completed his prison sentence prior
to any final adjudication of his PCRA petition, even though he initially filed the
petition while still incarcerated, was ineligible for PCRA relief). Thus, the
statute and our case law both “clearly contemplate[] that the petitioner will
be serving a sentence at both the pleading and proof stages of the
proceeding.” Id. at 720.
Bullock was sentenced to one year of probation on January 22, 2019.
Bullock’s probation therefore terminated on January 22, 2020, and Bullock has
accordingly completed serving the sentence for which he seeks relief.
As Bullock is no longer on probation during the pendency of the final
adjudication of his request for PCRA relief, we are constrained to find Bullock
has failed to meet the requirements of eligibility for relief under the PCRA.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9543(a)(1); see also Ahlborn, 699 A.2d at 720. The fact
that his sentence expired after the PCRA court entered the order denying him
relief does not change this outcome. See Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151
A.3d 1108, 1110 (Pa. Super. 2016). Accordingly, because the trial court
-4-
J-A27012-21
ultimately dismissed the PCRA petition, we affirm the decision, albeit on
different grounds.1
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/3/2022
____________________________________________
1 See Commonwealth v. Parker, 919 A.2d 943, 948 (Pa. 2007) (citations
omitted) (noting that “an appellate court has the ability to affirm a valid
judgment or verdict for any reason appearing as of record.”).
-5-