Com. v. Robbins, S.

J-S01024-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SHARVONNE ROBBINS
Appellant No. 1470 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0400013-1992
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2016
Appellant, Sharvonne Robbins, appeals from the May 5, 2015 order
dismissing, as untimely, her third petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful
review, we affirm.
On July 26, 1994, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of life
imprisonment after Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder,
robbery, possessing an instrument of a crime, and criminal conspiracy.1 This
Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on March 16, 1995.
Commonwealth v. Robbins, 660 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 1995) (unpublished
memorandum). As Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a), 907(a), and 903(a), respectively.
J-S01024-16
with our Supreme Court, her judgment of sentence became final on April 17,
1995, when the period for filing an allocatur petition expired.2 See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3) (stating, “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[]”); Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) (stating, “a
petition for allowance of appeal shall be filed with the Prothonotary of the
Supreme Court within 30 days after the entry of the order of the Superior
Court … sought to be reviewed[]”). Appellant filed PCRA petitions in 1997
and 2007, neither of which garnered her any relief. Appellant filed the
instant petition on June 10, 2010; as a result, it was facially untimely.
Instantly, Appellant argues that her petition is timely under the new
constitutional right exception because the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), should be
retroactively applied. Appellant’s Brief at 14, 17-20. However, our Supreme
Court has rejected this argument.3 Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81
____________________________________________
2
We note that the 30th day fell on Saturday, April 15, 1995. When
computing the 30-day filing period “[if] the last day of any such period shall
fall on Saturday or Sunday … such day shall be omitted from the
computation.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Therefore, the 30th day for Appellant to
file a timely allocatur petition was on Monday, April 17, 1995.
3
On March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Montgomery
v. Louisiana, 135 S. Ct. 1546 (2015), which presents the Miller
retroactivity question. Nonetheless, until the United States Supreme Court
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S01024-16
A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, Cunningham v. Pennsylvania, 134 S.
Ct. 2724 (2014). To the extent Appellant’s brief can be read to argue that
this Court should give broader retroactive effect to Miller under Danforth v.
Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), this Court lacks the judicial power to
decide that question for the purposes of the PCRA time-bar. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) (allowing a time-bar exception for “a
constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United
States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania … and has been held by that
court to apply retroactively[]”) (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the PCRA court properly
dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely. Accordingly, the PCRA
court’s May 5, 2015 order is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/13/2016
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
issues its decision, Cunningham remains dispositive of the issue in
Pennsylvania.
-3-