Com. v. Luckett, E.

J-S46037-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
EDWARD LUCKETT, :
:
Appellant : No. 225 MDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on January 16, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-35-CR-0001573-1995
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
Edward Luckett ( Luckett ), pro se, appeals from the Order denying
his fourth Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
( PCRA ).1 We affirm.
In November 1998, a jury convicted Luckett of one count each of first-
degree murder, robbery and burglary, and three counts of criminal
conspiracy.2 On January 22, 1999, the trial court sentenced Luckett to life in
prison. This Court affirmed Luckett s judgment of sentence, after which the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. Commonwealth
v. Luckett, 768 A.2d 885 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 792 A.2d
1
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 3701, 3502, 903.
J-S46037-14
1255 (Pa. 2001). Since that time, Luckett has filed several PCRA Petitions,
all of which were denied by the PCRA court.
Luckett filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his fourth, on August 16,
2013. After proper Notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court
dismissed Luckett s Petition without a hearing. Thereafter, Luckett filed the
instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
Luckett presents the following claims for our review:
A. Whether [the] PCRA court failed to apply correct or any
standard of proof as to why Luckett could not have: 1)
learned of child adoption violation before
April 20, 2013; and 2) ascertain A.J. Garrin s status as a
sexual predator before July 17, 2012[?]
B. [Whether] the PCRA court erred in holding that 1) [Luckett]
does not explain how this allege[d] interference affected his
claim[;] and 2) whether his third [PCRA P]etition was filed on
March 30, 2011, or July 11, 2011, it was still untimely by
many years[?]
C. Whether [the] PCRA court applied [an] incorrect merit
analysis standard similar to § 9543(a)(2)(iv) instead of
§ 9545(b)(1)(i) ( interference by government officials with
presentation of claim in violation of the Constitution, or laws
of this Commonwealth, or the Constitution of the U.S. )[?]
Brief for Appellant at 4.
An appellate court s standard of review regarding an order denying a
PCRA petition is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported
by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Kretchmar, 971 A.2d 1249, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2009). The PCRA court s
-2-
J-S46037-14
findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in
the certified record. Commonwealth v. Treadwell, 911 A.2d 987, 989
(Pa. Super. 2006).
Before addressing Luckett s claims, we must first address whether
Luckett has satisfied the timeliness requirements of the PCRA. The
timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional threshold and may not be
disregarded in order to reach the merits of the claims raised in a PCRA
petition that is untimely. Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa.
Super. 2014). A petitioner seeking relief under the PCRA must file his or her
petition within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence 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. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
Luckett filed the instant PCRA Petition more than ten years after his
judgment of sentence became final. Therefore, Luckett s Petition is facially
untimely. The PCRA provides, however, that an untimely petition may be
received when the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that any of the
three limited exceptions set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iii), are met. In order to be entitled to the exceptions to the PCRA s one-
year filing deadline, the petitioner must plead and prove specific facts that
demonstrate his claim was raised within the sixty-day time frame under
-3-
J-S46037-14
section 9545(b)(2). Lawson, 90 A.3d at 5 (citation omitted); see also 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
In its Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, the PCRA court determined that Luckett
failed to plead and prove any exception to the PCRA court s timeliness
requirements. PCRA Court Rule 907 Notice, 12/6/13, at 3-5. For the
reasons stated in the PCRA court s Notice, we agree, and affirm the Order of
the PCRA court on that basis. See id.
Application denied;3 Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2014
3
Luckett filed with this Court a pro se
Application argued that the Commonwealth misrepresented certain material
facts. However, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the
Application does not affect our conclusion that the PCRA court properly
denied
deny the Application.
-4-