Com. v. Paolino, R.

J-S79033-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
RICHARD G. PAOLINO, :
:
Appellant : No. 1183 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 31, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002180-2001 and
CP-09-CR-0005020-2001
BEFORE: ALLEN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2015
Richard G. Paolino (Appellant) appeals pro se from an order which
denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
A jury convicted Appellant of insurance fraud, conspiracy to practice
osteopathic medicine without a license, practicing osteopathic medicine
without a license, delivery of Vicodin, delivery of Xanax, delivery of a
Schedule II controlled substance, prescribing controlled substances contrary
to the requirements of law, and conspiracy to prescribe controlled
substances contrary to the requirements of law. The trial court sentenced
Appellant to an aggregate of 30 to 120 years in prison, and this Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence on December 2, 2003. Commonwealth
v. Paolino, 837 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our Supreme Court denied
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S79033-14
Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on October 20, 2004.
Commonwealth v. Paolino, 860 A.2d 489 (Pa. 2004). On February 9,
2005, Appellant filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court entered an order
denying the petition, and this Court affirmed that order on October 19,
2010. Commonwealth v. Paolino, 15 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Appellant also unsuccessfully sought relief in the federal court system.
Appellant, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on
September 19, 2013. The lower court treated the petition as a PCRA
petition and denied it in an order entered on January 31, 2014. Appellant
timely filed a notice of appeal.1 The lower court ordered Appellant to comply
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and the record suggests that Appellant timely filed a
1925(b) statement. In his brief to this Court, Appellant presents four prolix
issues. Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.
Initially, we observe that,
[u]nder Pennsylvania law, pro se defendants are subject to the
same rules of procedure as are represented defendants.
Although the courts may liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon a
litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s
counsel or find more in a written pro se submission than is fairly
conveyed in the pleading.
1
The record suggests that Appellant unsuccessfully attempted to have this
matter transferred to the Commonwealth Court.
-2-
J-S79033-14
Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 2014 WL 7392249, 20 (Pa. 2014) (citation
omitted).
The thrust of Appellant’s poorly crafted arguments to this Court seems
to be that the lower court improperly treated his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus as a PCRA petition. As best we can discern from Appellant’s brief and
habeas petition, he ultimately is claiming that, in 2000, the State Board of
Osteopathic Medicine violated federal bankruptcy law in improperly
suspending his medical license, which, according to Appellant, led to his
being arrested, convicted, and sentenced. As a remedy for this alleged
misstep, Appellant asks, inter alia, that he be released from prison.
Appellant has the burden to persuade us that the lower court erred,
that his petition is timely and that relief is due. Commonwealth v. Miner,
44 A.3d 684, 688 (Pa. Super. 2012). Nothing in Appellant’s brief convinces
us that a belated attack on the propriety of the medical board’s decision
warrants the relief that Appellant seeks, regardless of whether his petition is
treated as a PCRA petition which would be untimely or as a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. Consequently, we conclude that the lower court properly
dismissed the petition.
Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S79033-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/13/2015
-4-