J-S29015-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SIDNEY P. JONES

Appellant No. 1948 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 27, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002714-2012

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 19, 2017

Sidney Jones appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Delaware County, that dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46 (“PCRA”). After review, 

we affirm.

On September 11, 2012, Jones was convicted of burglary, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(1), graded as a felony of the first degree. On 

November 21, 2012, the trial court sentenced Jones to an aggregate 

sentence of nine to eighteen years’ imprisonment followed by eight years’ 

probation. Jones filed an appeal to this court on December 18, 2012, which 

affirmed his judgment of sentence on August 14, 2013. Commonwealth v. 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29015-17

- 2 -

Jones, 83 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2013) (table). On October 4, 2013, Jones 

filed, pro se, a petition for credit for time served while in custody prior to 

sentence, which the trial court denied on October 8, 2013. 

Jones filed a timely PCRA petition on October 11, 2013. On May 27, 

2016, the PCRA court granted Jones relief on his claim that the trial court 

failed to award him credit for time served for the eight-month period 

preceding trial, but dismissed the PCRA petition as to all other claims.

Jones filed a timely notice of appeal on July 11, 2016, and in response 

to the PCRA court’s order, he filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal. On October 20, 2016, the PCRA court 

issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion. On appeal, Jones raises the following 

issue for our review:

Was the trial court in error for denying the petition for post 

conviction relief alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel as to 

sufficiently establishing that the residence in question was not 

inhabited at the time of the incident which would have changed 

the grading of the burglary and as a result the sentencing 

guidelines for said charge?

Brief of Appellant, at 4. 

Jones claims that because the residence he burglarized was in violation 

of numerous building ordinances and “was not adapted for overnight 

accommodation of persons,” the trial court should not have graded his 

offense a first-degree felony. Brief of Appellant, at 9. This Court rejected 

that argument on appeal. Jones, 83 A.3d 1064. Here, Jones attempts to 
J-S29015-17

- 3 -

relitigate this specific issue by embedding it in an ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim. 

A claim previously litigated on direct appeal is not cognizable under 

the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 47 A.3d 63, 101 (Pa. 2012). 

This Court has already determined “there was sufficient evidence for the trial 

court to conclude that the victim's residence was adapted for overnight 

accommodation.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 2013 WL 11255511, at *3 

(Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Graham, 9 A.3d 

196, 202 (Pa. 2010)) (structure must already be adapted for accommodation 

for first-degree felony grading to apply to burglary). We agree with the 

PCRA court that Jones has already litigated the issue before us, and cannot 

revive it by simply couching it in terms of counsel’s ineffectiveness. 

Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss his claim.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/19/2017