Com. v. Walters, P.

J-S41019-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
PRESTON WAYNE WALTERS :
:
Appellant : No. 924 MDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 7, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at CP-22-CR-0002967-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 14, 2022
Preston Wayne Walters (Appellant) appeals pro se from the dismissal of
his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the history of this case as follows:
On December 10, 2014, [Appellant] was found guilty
following a bench trial of the offense of Robbery. On the same
date, [the trial court] sentenced [Appellant] to a term of not less
than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) years in a state
correctional institution. [Appellant] filed a timely Post-Sentence
Motion which was denied on December 22, 2014. On January 20,
2015, [Appellant] filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court. On December 1, 2015, the Superior
Court issued an unpublished Memorandum Opinion affirming the
judgment of sentence. [Appellant] did not seek allowance of
appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41019-22
On November 30, 2016, [Appellant] filed his first petition for
relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). On November
21, 2017, after consideration of a previously held hearing on
[Appellant]’s PCRA claims, we dismissed [Appellant]’s Petition.
After [the PCRA c]ourt granted [Appellant] the right to file a Notice
of Appeal nunc pro tunc, [Appellant] appealed our denial of his
PCRA to the Superior Court. On August 28, 2019, the Superior
Court affirmed our denial of [Appellant]’s PCRA Petition. On June
1, 2020, the Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
On September 24, 2021, [Appellant] filed a pro se second
petition for relief under the PCRA, and PCRA counsel was
appointed. On November 30, 2021, we dismissed [Appellant]’s
second PCRA Petition without a hearing. [Appellant] did not seek
an appeal of that dismissal.
On May 13, 2022, [Appellant] filed a pro se Writ of Habeas
Corpus. The sole issue presented therein is that the Magisterial
District Justice failed to sign and seal the Criminal Complaint and
Affidavit of Probable Cause, thereby invalidating the arrest
warrant and divesting the [trial c]ourt from exercising subject
matter jurisdiction over the case.
Rule 907 Notice, 5/17/22, at 1-2 (footnote omitted).
The PCRA court properly treated Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus as a PCRA petition. Id. at 2, citing Commonwealth v. Anderson,
234 A.3d 735, 737 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[A]ny claim for relief that is cognizable
under the PCRA must be treated as a PCRA petition and titling a petition as a
claim for a writ of habeas corpus does not avoid the PCRA’s timeliness
requirements.”). The PCRA court further observed that Appellant’s claim
regarding jurisdiction “is one of the specifically enumerated bases for PCRA
relief. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(viii).” Id. at 2.
As indicated above, the PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss
Appellant’s petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The
-2-
J-S41019-22
PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition on June 7, 2022. Appellant timely
appealed. The PCRA court stated “for purposes of appellate review, the [PCRA
court’s] reasons for dismissing [Appellant]’s PCRA petition were discussed” in
its Rule 907 Notice. Memorandum Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 6/28/22.
We review the PCRA court’s findings “to see if they are supported by the
record and free from legal error. Th[is C]ourt’s scope of review is limited to
the findings of the PCRA court viewed in the light most favorable to
the prevailing party.” Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436, 445–46
(Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted).
Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, no court has jurisdiction to hear
an untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076,
1079 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d
1157, 1161 (Pa. 2003)). The PCRA provides that a petition “including a second
or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment
becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); accord Monaco, 996 A.2d at
1079. A judgment is 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).
There are three statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s time
requirement. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). The late filing of a petition will be
excused if a petitioner alleges and proves:
-3-
J-S41019-22
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.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). If invoking an exception, the petitioner
must file the petition “within one year of the date the claim could have been
presented.” Id. at § 9545(b)(2).
This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on December 1,
2015, and he did not seek allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. Therefore, his judgment of sentence became final on or about
December 31, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) (“a petition for allowance of
appeal shall be filed with the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court within 30
days …”). Appellant had one year to file a timely PCRA petition. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(b)(1). He did not file the underlying petition until May 13, 2022, and
he has not proved an exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement. As the
PCRA court stated, the criminal complaint Appellant challenges “is the same
one that has always existed in his case, and nothing has prevented [Appellant]
-4-
J-S41019-22
from raising this claim earlier in a timely fashion.” Rule 907 Notice, 5/17/22,
at 5. Also, there is no support for Appellant’s claim of a jurisdictional defect.1
In sum, Appellant’s petition is untimely and does not qualify for a
statutory exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement. We therefore affirm
the denial of relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/14/2022
____________________________________________
1The PCRA court observed the “Complaint was, in fact, appropriately signed.”
Rule 907 Notice, 5/17/22, at 3 n.2. Further, “even if the Criminal Complaint
had not been signed, that fact would not divest the [trial c]ourt of subject
matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 3 (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d
205, 210 (Pa. 2007)).
-5-