Com. v. Wells, R.

J-S31019-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RODNEY WELLS :
:
Appellant : No. 3137 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 9, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0734932-1985
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2023
Appellant, Rodney Wells, appeals pro se from the November 9, 2022
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying
his “Motion for Correction of the Record.” Following review, we affirm.
On May 3, 1998, a jury convicted Appellant of murder and related
offenses at Docket Number CP-51-CR-0734932-1985 in the First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County). He was subsequently
sentenced to life in prison. After exhausting his remedies on direct appeal,
Appellant sought collateral relief from his judgment of sentence pursuant to
the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 Most recently, on November 10,
2021, Appellant filed a pro se fifth PCRA petition. By order entered August 5,
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S31019-23
2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. On August 15, 2022, Appellant
filed a pro se appeal to this Court from the August 5, 2022 order. That appeal
is docketed at No. 2113 EDA 2022.2
On November 1, 2022, Appellant filed a “Motion for Correction of the
Record,” asking the PCRA court to “correct” the caption of the petition the
court had dismissed on August 5, 2022. As the PCRA court noted, “The
‘correction’ sought by [Appellant] is to add an additional docket number (CP-
51-CR-0119461-1985) to the docket number that was the subject of the
Habeas Petition (CP-51-CR-0734932-1985).” PCRA Court Opinion, 1/13/23,
at 1. “The docket number for the additional case pertains to [Appellant’s]
conviction on September 3, 1986, for a different murder[.]” Id. at 2.
Appellant’s motion asked the PCRA court “to transmit to the Superior Court
documents and grand jury materials pertaining to the additional case.” Id. at
1. As the PCRA court observed, the docket number for the 1986 case “appears
nowhere in the [PCRA petition] and pertains to an entirely different matter.”
Id.
On November 9, 2022, the PCRA court issued an order denying
Appellant’s motion. In its order, the court mentioned its dismissal of
Appellant’s fifth PCRA petition and Appellant’s appeal from that dismissal.
____________________________________________
2 Although Appellant titled his November 10, 2021 petition, “Writ of Habeas
Corpus ad Subjiciendum,” the PCRA court properly treated the petition as a
PCRA petition.
-2-
J-S31019-23
Order, 11/9/22, at 1. The court explained that, in light of the pending appeal,
“the court is without jurisdiction to grant [Appellant] the relief he requests.”
Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. 2020) (“Once an
appeal is filed a trial court has no jurisdiction to proceed further in the [PCRA]
matter”)). See also, Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) (General rule.--Except as otherwise
prescribed by these rules, after an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial
order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may no longer
proceed further in the matter.)
Appellant filed a timely appeal from the court’s November 9, 2022 order.
He presents one issue for our consideration:
1. WHETHER the PCRA Court dismissal of the Appellant’s
MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF THE RECORD is supported by
the evidence of record and free of legal error?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (verbatim).
Appellant’s brief includes an “Argument” section that spans just over
one page and is nothing more than the procedural history relating to
Appellant’s fifth PCRA petition and an assertion that he has preserved issues
at the docket numbers for both of his murder convictions. Appellant does not
cite any legal authority for granting his “motion for correction of the record”
and appears not to understand that his pending appeal from the denial of his
fifth PCRA petition stripped the PCRA court of jurisdiction to entertain his
motion.
-3-
J-S31019-23
The Commonwealth also notes the absence of any argument in
Appellant’s brief but further observes that the rule upon which Appellant relied
in his motion, Pa.R.A.P. 1926 (Correction or Modification of the Record), “does
not permit the expansion of the record[.]” Commonwealth Brief at 8.
Therefore, “the trial court had no jurisdiction to add an additional case [that]
it did not consider in the initial PCRA petition.” Commonwealth Brief at 8.
As the trial court correctly recognized,
Rule 1926 is a means to correct clerical errors by supplementing
the record with documents that should have been certified for
appellate review but were mistakenly omitted. Commonwealth
v. Luckett, 2021 WL 3088758, at *3, n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021)
(unpublished memorandum).[3] Rule 1926 may not be used to
expand the record through the addition of new documents. Id.PCRA Court Opinion, 1/13/23, at 3. Moreover,
[t]he court’s order denying the motion stated that the court was
without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested due to the
pendency of the appeal from the order dismissing the [fifth PCRA]
petition. The court was empowered to correct the record under
Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b) notwithstanding a pending appeal. However, as
stated [above], Rule 1926(b) did not authorize the relief
requested in the motion.
Id. at 4 n.4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We agree with the PCRA court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction
to grant relief. Further, to the extent Rule 1926 authorizes correction of the
record, it did not authorize the relief requested.
____________________________________________
3 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential decisions of the
Superior Court filed After May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive
value).
-4-
J-S31019-23
Order affirmed.
Date: 11/2/2023
-5-