Com. v. Haggie, T.

J-S40013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
THOMAS PAUL HAGGIE,
Appellant No. 1740 WDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000553-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MCLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 1, 2019
Appellant, Thomas Paul Haggie, appeals pro se from the trial court’s
November 15, 2018 order denying, as untimely, his petition under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We need not discuss the facts of Appellant’s underlying convictions for
purposes of this appeal. The PCRA court briefly summarized the procedural
history of his case, as follows:
[Appellant] was charged with Criminal Homicide,1 Criminal
Homicide of Unborn Child,2 Criminal Conspiracy-Homicide,3 and
Criminal Conspiracy-Homicide of Unborn Child.4 On December 8,
2010, [Appellant] knowingly and voluntarily entered into a guilty
plea agreement and pled guilty to Murder of the First Degree
(Section 2502(a)) and Murder of the First Degree of an Unborn
Child (Section 2604(a)). The guilty plea agreement was signed
by [Appellant] and his attorneys and was accompanied by a
docketed Written Guilty Plea Colloquy that was also signed by
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40013-19
[Appellant] and his counsel. Subsequently, on January 13, 2011,
[Appellant] was sentenced to two life sentences without the
possibility of parole.
1 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2501(a)[.]
2 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2603(a)[.]
3 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 903(a) and §2501(a)[.]
4 18 Pa.C.S.[] §903(a) and §2603(a)[.]
On October 24, 2018, [] Appellant … filed a Pro Se [PCRA]
Petition…. This is his second PCRA [petition]. The court, citing to
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), dismissed the second PCRA Petition as
untimely. On December 6, 2018, [Appellant] filed a [timely, pro
se] Notice of Appeal.
PCRA Court Opinion, 4/4/19.
The PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal. After the court granted
Appellant an extension of time to file his concise statement, Appellant timely
did so on April 1, 2019. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 4,
2019.
Appellant presents the following, verbatim language in his “Statement
of the Question Presented” portion of his appellate brief:
A. Was Appellant denied the effective assistance of counsel where
trial counsel failed to object to the
Did the court err in ruling against Appeallant mental state
prevented him from forming the specific intent necessary for a
first-degree murder conviction
Yes
B. Did the court err in ruling against commission of criminal acts
and pursuit of diminished capacity mental illness or lack of
premeditation defenses
Yes
-2-
J-S40013-19
Appellant’s Brief at 6 (unnumbered).
We also quote, verbatim, the entirety of Appellant’s “Argument” section:
The failure of trial counsel to uphold Appellant right make his own
choices about the proper way to protect his own liberty by not
investigation of wetness or crime snece. And by not investigation
on the effect on the medication that Appellant was take
Id. at 9 (unnumbered).
Clearly, Appellant’s argument is insufficient to allow us to meaningfully
review the ineffectiveness claim he seemingly attempts to present on appeal.
Additionally, Appellant’s pro se petition is patently untimely under 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9545(b)(1), and he has failed to demonstrate the applicability of any of the
timeliness exceptions set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Therefore, we
discern no error in the PCRA court’s dismissing his petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/1/2019
-3-