Com. v. Thomas, W.

J-S26043-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WAYNE THOMAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1904 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0009083-1988
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WAYNE THOMAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1905 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0009080-1988
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WAYNE THOMAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1906 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0009082-1988
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-S26043-20
:
v. :
:
:
WAYNE THOMAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1907 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0010630-1988
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JULY 17, 2020
Wayne Thomas appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County (PCRA Court) dismissing as untimely his petition filed
pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541-46. We
affirm.
I.
In 1988, Thomas was charged at the four above-captioned county court
docket numbers: CP-02-CR-0009083-1988; CP-02-CR-0009080-1988; CP-
02-CR-0009082-1988; and CP-02-CR-0010630-1988. On January 11, 1989,
Thomas entered into a global plea of nolo contendere as to all four cases, and
on March 28, 1989, he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 33.5 to
67 years.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-S26043-20
At the sentencing hearing, despite that he was represented by counsel
at the time, Thomas attempted to file a pro se motion to withdraw his plea.
See Sentencing Transcript, 3/28/1989, at pp. 11-13. The sentencing court
declined to consider the motion but advised Thomas that he had the right to
appeal his plea. Id. at p. 14.
Thomas appealed with the benefit of counsel, arguing that he received
an excessive sentence. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on
February 9, 1990. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for
allowance of appeal later that year. In his first PCRA petition, Thomas argued
in part that his plea was involuntary and that petition was denied.
From 1991 until 2007, Thomas filed five different PCRA petitions, none
of which afforded him any relief. Thomas filed his sixth PCRA petition, pro se,
on March 27, 2019, and the PCRA Court appointed Thomas counsel a few
weeks later. In this latest petition, Thomas argued that he never received a
ruling on his pro se motion to withdraw his plea and his appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise that issue in the direct appeal. See PCRA
petition, 3/27/2019, at 2-3.
PCRA counsel moved to withdraw from the case on September 12, 2019,
explaining in a Turner-Finley No Merit letter1 that in counsel’s opinion, the
____________________________________________
1Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
-3-
J-S26043-20
PCRA petition was time-barred and meritless. PCRA counsel added that
Thomas had unsuccessfully raised the same claims in his first PCRA petition.
On October 2, 2019, the PCRA Court gave Thomas notice of its intention
to summarily dismiss his petition and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.
The PCRA court denied the petition on November 13, 2019, and did so in a
single order bearing all four of the county court docket numbers. The order
reads in pertinent part as follows:
[Thomas] asserts that PCRA Counsel did not properly address
[his] assertions that the sentencing court failed to adhere to
proper procedure, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 320 and 321, in
addressing [Thomas’] Motion to Withdraw Nolo Contendere Plea.
The Court again notes that the issue of whether [Thomas’] nolo
contendere plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary was
previously raised in [Thomas’] first PCRA Petition. This issue was
considered and resolved by the Honorable Robert R. Kelly as
evidenced by the Trial Transcript dated July 18, 1991 and Judge
Kelly's Order of Court dated August 27, 1991. While [Thomas]
asserts that the basis of the present Petition is that his Motion to
Withdraw Nolo Contendere Plea was not addressed pursuant to
proper procedure and that he is not challenging whether his nolo
contendere plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the
Motion to Withdraw Nolo Contendere Plea hinged on the issue of
whether [Thomas] had entered a knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary plea. This issue was resolved at the time that Judge
Kelly dismissed [Thomas’] first PCRA Petition via his August 27,
1991 Order of Court. Accordingly, any claim arising from the
procedure utilized by the trial court in resolving [Thomas’] Motion
to Withdraw Nolo Contendere Plea is clearly time-barred under 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), and [Thomas] fails to point to any valid
excuse or applicable exception. In any event, the issues raised in
the present PCRA Petition were previously raised and addressed
by way of Petitioner’s first PCRA Petition, and have thus already
been litigated and cannot form the basis of the present PCRA
Petition. [Thomas’] Petition for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief is
dismissed.
-4-
J-S26043-20
[Thomas] is advised that he has the right to file an appeal, either
pro se or through privately retained counsel, to the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
PCRA Court Order, 11/13/2019, at 1-2.
Thomas timely filed a notice of appeal on December 12, 2019, with a
caption listing the four county court docket numbers. That same day, on
December 12, 2019, the Director of the Allegheny County Department of Court
Records sent Thomas a letter acknowledging receipt of his notice of appeal.
Thomas was advised that no notice of appeal would be forwarded to the
Superior Court Prothonotary until separate amended notices were filed for
each county court docket number.
Thomas complied with the recommendation and submitted separate
notices of appeal on December 19, 2019. These four amended notices each
became separate appeals, as the caption of this memorandum reflects. 2 On
February 3, 2020, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513, we consolidated the four
appeals, sua sponte. The PCRA Court entered an order and a 1925(a) opinion
on February 24, 2020, as to all four appeals. See 1925(a) Opinion,
2/24/2020, at 1-2.
____________________________________________
2While his appeals were pending at 1904 WDA 2019, 1905 WDA 2019, 1906
WDA 2019, and 1907 WDA 2019, Thomas apparently filed a duplicative fifth
notice of appeal at appellate number 11 WDA 2020, listing all four county
court docket numbers. This Court quashed the duplicative appeal on January
30, 2020.
-5-
J-S26043-20
In his pro se appellate brief, Thomas reiterates the claim that due to his
counsel’s ineffectiveness, he never received a ruling on his pending motion to
withdraw the global plea in his four cases. The Commonwealth responds that
Thomas’ petition was properly dismissed as untimely because the judgment
of sentence became final decades ago and no exception to the PCRA’s time-
bar applies.
II.
A.
Before turning to the timeliness and merit of Thomas’ sixth PCRA
petition, we must address this Court’s jurisdiction in light of Commonwealth
v. Walker, 189 A.3d 969, 976-77 (Pa. 2018), where our Supreme Court
applied the Comments of Pa.R.A.P. 341 in holding that a separate notice of
appeal must be filed as to each docket number.
In this case, Thomas filed his initial notice of appeal on December 12,
2019, seeking review of a single order captioned with four docket numbers.
This filing date was 29 days after the date the PCRA court denied the subject
petition, making the notice timely. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (appeal is timely if
filed within “30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is
taken.”).3
____________________________________________
3It appears that with respect to Thomas’ timely filed notice of appeal from
December 12, 2019, this Court never assigned an appellate docket number.
This is likely because the Department of Court Records did not forward
-6-
J-S26043-20
In Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019), we
addressed almost identical circumstances and determined that Walker did
not require this Court to quash the appeal. The defendant in Stansbury had
filed a single notice of appeal that included two docket numbers in the caption.
The trial court had instructed him to file “a written notice of appeal to the
Superior Court[.]” Stansbury, 219 A.3d at 159 (emphasis in original). We
concluded that it would be unfair to quash the appeal because the defect in
the notice resulted from the trial court’s erroneous advice, which constituted
a “breakdown in the court system.” Id. at 160.
Similarly, in this case, Thomas was misled by the PCRA court into filing
a single notice of appeal despite that four separate notices were required. The
order dismissing his petition is captioned with four county court docket
numbers, and it instructs that Thomas “has the right to file an appeal,” in the
singular. PCRA Court Order, 11/13/2019, at 2. The PCRA court’s notice of
intent to dismiss also referred to the proceedings as a single “matter.” Thus,
____________________________________________
Thomas’ original notice to the Superior Court Prothonotary. Nevertheless,
Thomas’ initial notice was timely and properly filed. Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(3)
provides that “[u]pon receipt of the notice of appeal, the clerk shall
immediately stamp it with the date of receipt, and that date shall constitute
the date when the appeal was taken, which date shall be shown on the
docket.” See First Union Nat’l Bank v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 812
A.2d 719, 723 (Pa. Super. 2002). Failure to time-stamp and docket a timely-
filed notice of appeal, even a flawed one, is a breakdown in court operations
warranting nunc pro tunc relief. See Nagy v. Best Home Services, 829
A.2d 1166, 1168 (Pa. Super. 2003).
-7-
J-S26043-20
as in Stansbury, the misadvice of the PCRA Court permits this Court to
consider the appeal as properly filed.
B.
We now review the PCRA court’s ruling that Thomas’ petition was
untimely.4 A petitioner must file a PCRA petition within one year of the date
on which the petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final, unless one of
three statutory exceptions applies. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)
(enumerating the three limited circumstances excusing an untimely petition).
Where a PCRA petition is facially untimely, a petitioner must invoke a
statutory exception “within 60 days of the date the claim could have been
presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).5 If a petition is untimely and the
petitioner has not pled and proven an exception, “neither this Court nor the
____________________________________________
4 On reviewing an order denying PCRA relief, the record must be construed “in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.”
Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865, 872 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014))). This Court
may only consider whether the evidence supports the PCRA court’s conclusion
and whether the ruling is free of legal error. See Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 185 (Pa. 2016). The PCRA court’s findings must be
upheld as long as it is supported by the record. See Commonwealth v.
Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2014).
5 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2) was amended, effective December 24, 2018, to
allow petitioners one year from the date a claim could have been presented.
The amendment only applies to claims arising on December 24, 2017, or after.
See 2018 Pa.Legis.Serv.Act 2018-146 (S.B. 915), effective December 24,
2018, § 2 and § 3. Thomas’ present claim arose at the time of his sentencing
in 1989, so the older version of PCRA allowing 60 days from the date a claim
could have been presented determines the deadline for his PCRA petition.
-8-
J-S26043-20
trial court has jurisdiction over the petition” and the substantive claims cannot
be addressed. Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa.
2006)).
Thomas’ PCRA petition is facially untimely. “A judgment is deemed 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.’” Commonwealth v.
Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(3)).
The trial court entered Thomas’ judgment of sentence on March 28,
1989, and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on February 9, 1990.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on October 31, 1990, and
the time for filing an application for writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court expired 90 days later, on January 29, 1991. Under Section
9545(b)(1), Thomas had to file his PCRA petition within one year from that
date (January 29, 1992), but he did not file the underlying petition until March
27, 2019.
This Court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of Thomas’ appeal
unless he established one of the timeliness exceptions of Section 9545(b)(1).
Thomas has not attempted to plead, much less prove, any of those exceptions
-9-
J-S26043-20
to the PCRA’s time bar.6 Thus, the PCRA Court lacked jurisdiction to address
Thomas’ claims and his petition was properly dismissed.
Order affirmed.
Judge Murray joins the memorandum.
Judge McLaughlin files a concurring statement in which Judge Murray
joins.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/17/2020
____________________________________________
6 Thomas’ appellate brief is difficult to follow but he seems to suggest that the
present PCRA petition should be treated as timely because in 1989, the
sentencing court violated the procedural rules in declining to consider an
unfiled motion to withdraw his plea. Thomas supposes that his motion has
remained pending since that point, tolling the time for him to seek relief and
have his plea vacated. However, none of the arguments or authorities
discussed in Thomas’ brief affect this Court’s calculation as to when his
judgment of sentence became final – January 29, 1991. As discussed above,
a Pennsylvania court only has jurisdiction to consider a claim filed pursuant to
the PCRA if it is filed within one year of that date, unless an exception applies.
Over 28 years have passed, and Thomas does not plead or prove an exception.
The claims are time barred.
- 10 -