Com. v. Piskanin, M.

J-S68031-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MICHAEL PISKANIN, JR., :
:
Appellant : No. 466 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered on December 9, 2013
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-39-CR-0002072-2004
BEFORE: ALLEN, JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2014
Michael Piskanin, Jr. (“Piskanin”), appeals, pro se, from the Order
denying his “Motion to Reinstate First PCRA”1 (hereinafter referred to as
“Motion to Reinstate”).2 We affirm.
This Court previously set forth the relevant history underlying this
appeal as follows:
On March 18, 2004, [Piskanin] was charged with numerous
offenses in connection with a criminal enterprise involving his
creation of counterfeit driver’s licenses and payroll checks. A
jury convicted him of sixty-nine counts of identity theft and one
count each of theft by deception and receiving stolen property.
On July 8, 2005, [Piskanin] received an aggregate sentence of
seven to fourteen years imprisonment, and we affirmed the
judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Piskanin, 986 A.2d
1262 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum). [Piskanin]
1
See Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2
As discussed below, we construe the Motion to Reinstate as a PCRA
Petition.
J-S68031-14
thereafter filed an unsuccessful PCRA [P]etition, and, on appeal,
we affirmed. Commonwealth v. Piskanin, 37 A.3d 1233 (Pa.
Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 61
A.3d 191 (Pa. 2013). On March 12, 2013, [Piskanin] filed a
second [Petition] for PCRA relief based upon newly-discovered
evidence, and he claimed that certain members of this Court had
accepted bribes to deprive him of due process. That [P]etition
was denied on April 2, 2013, and we affirmed that denial on
December 24, 2013. Commonwealth v. Piskanin, [93 A.3d
518] (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum, 1153 EDA
2013)[, appeal denied, 97 A.3d 744 (Pa. 2014)].
Commonwealth v. Piskanin, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2982 (Pa. Super.
2014) (unpublished memorandum at 1-2) (footnote omitted). The PCRA
court also subsequently dismissed Piskanin’s third and fourth pro se PCRA
Petitions, finding that they were facially untimely and that Piskanin had
failed to prove any exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time limitation.3
On November 22, 2013, Piskanin filed the pro se Motion to Reinstate,4
which we will treat as his fifth PCRA Petition. Therein, Piskanin incorporated
by reference several of his numerous pro se Petitions for collateral relief filed
with this Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the federal courts,
3
The limited certified record and PCRA court docket before us does not
reveal whether Piskanin appealed the dismissal of his third and fourth PCRA
Petitions.
4
We observe that the Motion to Reinstate is not contained within the
certified record, nor did Piskanin append it to his appellate brief. It is well-
established that “it is an appellant’s duty to ensure that the certified record
is complete for purposes of review.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d
74, 82 (Pa. Super. 2012) (brackets omitted); see also id. (stating that
“failure to ensure that the record provides sufficient information to conduct a
meaningful review constitutes waiver of the issue sought to be reviewed.”).
We decline to find waiver of Piskanin’s issues on this basis, and observe that
the Commonwealth has appended a copy of the Motion to Reinstate to its
brief.
-2-
J-S68031-14
and made allegations of impropriety against the Honorable Kelly L. Banach
(“Judge Banach”), i.e., the PCRA court judge who dismissed Piskanin’s first
and subsequent PCRA Petitions, as well as members of the Lehigh County
District Attorneys’ Office and other attorneys.5 By an Order entered on
December 9, 2013, the PCRA court denied the Motion to Reinstate without a
hearing. Piskanin timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal. On February 25,
2014, Judge Banach issued an Order in lieu of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion,
explaining her reasons for denying Piskanin’s Motion to Reinstate as follows:
… [Piskanin] has filed innumerable and incommodious
appeals, both in the Superior Court as well as the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, in reference to the above-captioned
matter[,6] for which he was convicted and sentenced to a period
of state incarceration[.]
… [T]he appeals which have been considered by the
Superior Court regarding the trial and subsequent sentence
imposed have all been denied[.]
… [E]ach subsequent appeal, of which there have been
many, has alleged meritless legal arguments and contained
nothing short of harassment and personal attacks as to the
character and ethical practices of [the PCRA c]ourt[.]
… [Piskanin’s] writings, both in the body of the “motions”
and “petitions” as well as outside the envelopes and
correspondence, contain meritless accusations regarding the
5
Piskanin referred to these individuals as “unholy” and “corrupt,” and
averred that they were “attempt[ing] to [] accomplish the murder of
[Piskanin].” Motion to Reinstate, 11/22/13, at 2-4. Many of Piskanin’s prior
pro se court filings contain similar scurrilous allegations.
6
Our independent review confirms the PCRA court’s assertion that Piskanin
has been exceptionally litigious. Indeed, a search of the prior case history
associated with Piskanin’s case shows 27 related cases in our appellate
courts and the federal courts.
-3-
J-S68031-14
[PCRA c]ourt as well as the system of justice in the County of
Lehigh[,] and suggest that [Piskanin] may suffer from mental
illness[.]
… [Piskanin’s] delusional allegations continue to bog down
the wheels of justice, [the PCRA c]ourt’s docket, and the time,
effort, and investigative resources of the Court of Common
Pleas, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and even the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, as exhibited by his ranting, unbalanced,
and exasperating accusations contained within each Motion or
Petition he files[.]
Order, 2/25/14, at 2-3 (unnumbered; footnote added; some capitalization
omitted).
On appeal, Piskanin presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether or not [Judge] Banach should have recused
[herself,] and therefore denied [Piskanin] due process and
first PCRA rights[,] in violation of 42 Pa[.C.S.A. §] 9541 to
9546[,] and US Constitution, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 14[,] and PA Constitution Article I sec[tion] 7?
2. Whether or not [Piskanin’s] first PCRA rights?[7]
Brief for Appellant at 1 (footnote added).
We are precluded from addressing the merits of Piskanin’s claims
because the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to address Piskanin’s untimely
PCRA Petition/Motion to Reinstate.
This Court has observed that
the timeliness of a PCRA petition implicates the jurisdiction of
this Court and the PCRA court. Pennsylvania law makes clear no
court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition.
The PCRA confers no authority upon this Court to fashion ad hoc
equitable exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. This is to accord
7
Piskanin failed to set forth a complete sentence in connection with his
second issue.
-4-
J-S68031-14
finality to the collateral review process. A petition for relief
under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must
be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final
unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an
exception to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.
Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en
banc) (emphasis added; citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted);
see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44, 53 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(stating that “[w]hen a PCRA petition is not filed within one year of the
expiration of direct review, or not eligible for one of the three limited
exceptions, or entitled to one of the exceptions, but not filed within 60 days
of the date that the claim could have been first brought, the trial court has
no power to address the substantive merits of a petitioner’s PCRA claims.”
(citation omitted)).
Here, Piskanin’s instant PCRA Petition/Motion to Reinstate is facially
untimely, as his judgment of sentence became final in June 2006. Moreover,
Piskanin does not address the untimely nature of his filing, or plead or prove
any of the three exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.
Accordingly, Piskanin is not entitled to collateral relief, and the PCRA court
therefore properly denied his fifth PCRA Petition/Motion to Reinstate.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-S68031-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/21/2014
-6-