Com. v. Robinson, T.

J-S49025-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
THOMAS ROBINSON
Appellant No. 644 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 22, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No: CP-46-CR-0002653-1996
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J. and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
Appellant, Thomas Robinson, appeals pro se from an order dismissing
his seventh petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541—9546, as untimely. We hold that the PCRA court
properly dismissed Appellant’s petition without a hearing. We affirm.
In 1996, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced
to life imprisonment. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence,
and Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Subsequently, Appellant filed six PCRA petitions, all of which were
unsuccessful. This Court affirmed the dismissal of each petition in unpublished
decisions. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 792 A.2d 618 (Pa. Super.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S49025-19
2001) (affirming first PCRA dismissal); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 924
A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. 2007) (affirming second PCRA dismissal);
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 981 A.2d 932 (Pa. Super. 2009) (affirming
third PCRA dismissal); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 6 A.3d 548 (Pa. Super.
2010) (affirming fourth PCRA dismissal); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 34
A.3d 239 (Pa. Super. 2011) (affirming fifth PCRA dismissal); Commonwealth
v. Robinson, 116 A.3d 674 (Pa. Super. 2014) (affirming sixth PCRA
dismissal).
On June 18, 2018, Appellant filed the PCRA petition presently under
review. On December 17, 2019, the PCRA court filed a notice of intent to
dismiss this petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On
January 11, 2019, Appellant filed a response to the notice of intent. On
January 22, 2019, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s
PCRA Petition. On February 15, 2019, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from
the court’s January 22, 2019 order. Both Appellant and the PCRA court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises a single issue in this appeal: “[Appellant’s]
constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law were
violated when the lower court dismissed his PCRA [petition] as untimely filed.”
It is difficult to understand the gist of Appellant’s argument; he appears to
believe that the PCRA court has steadfastly refused to review a “May 2003
Senate report” that Appellant deems newly discovered evidence.
-2-
J-S49025-19
We must first examine the timeliness of Appellant’s petition, because
the PCRA time limitations implicate our jurisdiction and may not be altered or
disregarded in order to address the merits of a petition. Commonwealth v.
Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, the petitioner
must move for post-conviction relief within one year of the date the judgment
of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment becomes
final under the PCRA “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.” 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The one-year limitation period does not apply,
however, when the petitioner pleads and proves that:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
interference by government officials with the presentation of the
claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth
or the Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to
the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise
of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized
by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and
has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
-3-
J-S49025-19
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)—(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke one of
these exceptions “shall be filed within one year[1] of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final in 1998, thirty
days after this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on direct appeal. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). His present petition, filed in 2018, is facially untimely.
Thus, for this Court to have jurisdiction to review his petition on the merits,
he must prove that he meets one or more of the exceptions in Section
9545(b). The PCRA court correctly determined in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion
that Appellant failed to establish that any exception applies. He failed to
demonstrate that (1) his PCRA petition was untimely due to government
interference; (2) the facts upon which the claim is predicated, the “May 2003
Senate report,” were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by
the exercise of due diligence; or (3) he has asserted some constitutional right
that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court after the PCRA’s one-year limitation period. We
therefore conclude that the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s seventh
PCRA petition as untimely.
____________________________________________
1 Effective December 24, 2018, the Legislature amended Section 9545(b)(2)
of the PCRA, increasing the time period for invoking an exception under
Section 9545(b)(1) from sixty days to one year. See Section 3 of Act 2018,
Oct. 24, P.L. 894, No. 146. The amendment applies only to claims arising on
or after December 24, 2017.
-4-
J-S49025-19
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/27/19
-5-