J-S36014-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CAREY ABNEY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1142 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0804281-1995

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 03, 2022

Carey Abney appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying his petition to cease unlawful 

imprisonment. The court deemed his petition as one filed pursuant to the 

Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, and denied 

relief. We affirm.

On September 9, 1996, following a non-jury trial, Abney was convicted 

of first-degree murder1 and possession of instruments of crime (PIC)2 by the 

Honorable Juanita Kidd Stout and immediately sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Following a direct appeal to this Court, several PCRA and habeas corpus

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a).
J-S36014-21

- 2 -

petitions, and this, his sixth appeal to this Court, Abney again claims he is 

unlawfully confined because there is no written and signed sentencing order 

authorizing his incarceration. See Petition to Cease Unlawful Imprisonment, 

10/5/20, at 1-2; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of Appeal, 

6/23/21, at ¶ 2. On July 9, 2021, the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson denied 

Abney’s petition. 

Abney first claims the court erred in treating his petition as one filed 

pursuant to the PCRA, rather than as a petition for habeas corpus. In Joseph 

v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365, 368 (Pa. Super. 2014), this Court stated that a claim 

challenging the legality of a defendant’s commitment and detention “due to 

the inability of the [Department of Corrections] to produce a written 

sentencing order related to [his] judgment of sentence constitutes a claim 

legitimately sounding in habeas corpus.” Id. at 368. See also Brown v. 

Penna. Dept. of Corr., 81 A.3d 814, 815 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam) (citing

Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v. Hendrick, 280 A.2d 110, 112 (Pa. 1971). 

Notwithstanding the validity of this claim, Abney raised the same issue in two 

prior habeas corpus petitions, the most recent one filed on February 22, 2017. 

On appeal to this Court following denial of that petition, we stated: 

To the extent [Abney] contends that he is being confined without 

a written sentencing order, we agree with the trial court that this 

issue could be cognizable under the habeas corpus statute but was 

previously litigated and frivolous. See Abney, 80 EDA 2016 at 3-

4; see also Commonwealth v. Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287, 1292 

(Pa. 1983) (construing written sentence endorsed on bill of 

information); Commonwealth v. Williams, 636 A.2d 183, 184 

n.2 (Pa. Super. 1993) (en banc) (relying on written endorsement 
J-S36014-21

- 3 -

of sentence on back of information that was dated the same day 

of the sentencing hearing).

Commonwealth v. Abney, 1407 EDA 2017, at *5 (Pa. Super. filed March 

13, 2018) (unpublished memorandum decision). The Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court denied allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Abney, 197 A.3d 712 

(Pa. 2018) (Table).3 

____________________________________________

3

In a prior opinion, in 2015, Judge Bronson explained: 

Trial courts have the inherent authority to correct patent errors in 

orders and judgments even after the expiration of the statutory 

30[-]day time limit for modification of orders set forth in 42 Pa.C. 

S.A. § 5505. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 

57, 64–67 (Pa. 2007). Here, however, there are no apparent 

errors in the sentencing orders in [Abney’s] case. As was then 

the standard procedure, the sentencing orders were handwritten 

on the original Bills of Information filed in this matter, copies of 

which are attached to this Opinion as Exhibit A.

There are no clerical errors on the orders. Judge Stout clearly and 

succinctly detailed the sentence imposed, correctly dated the 

orders, and signed them. Further, the [c]ourt’s sentencing order 

was correctly recorded on a Form DC-300B, which was signed by 

the court clerk. The Form DC-300B is attached to this Opinion as 

Exhibit B.

[Abney] was sentenced on September 9, 1996, long before the 

adoption and use of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Case 

Management System (“CPCMS”). The “order” that [Abney] 

attached to his motion, while apparently generated by CPCMS, 

does contain numerous errors.[] It is not, however, the 

sentencing order actually entered by the [c]ourt, but an incorrect 

report of the sentence, printed decades after [Abney] was 

sentenced. As there are no clerical errors in [Abney’s] actual 

sentencing orders, the Court properly denied [Abney’s] motion. 

No relief is due.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 3 (footnote omitted). 
J-S36014-21

- 4 -

Abney’s claim would not have entitled him to habeas corpus review 

because it was finally litigated and, more importantly, would not have entitled 

him to relief because the record contains the trial court’s September 9, 1996 

sentencing order.4 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/3/2022

____________________________________________

4 Regardless of whether the claim is reviewed under the habeas corpus statute 

or the PCRA statute, the court properly dismissed it. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9543(a)(2)-(3). Abney’s judgment of sentence became final once this Court 

affirmed the judgment of sentence on October 17, 1997, and the period for 

filing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expired on 

November 17, 1997. Commonwealth v. Abney, 990 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 

2009) (unpublished memorandum decision), appeal denied, 998 A.2d 958 (Pa. 

Super. 2010). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Thus, in order to comply with 

the time requirements of the PCRA, any and all PCRA petitions had to be filed 

by November 17, 1998. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). The instant petition, 

filed on October 5, 2020, is almost twenty-two years late, and no exception 

has been pled or proven. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Cf.

Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259, 1261 (Pa. Super. 2001) (writ 

of habeas corpus not available outside framework of PCRA, where merits of 

PCRA petition cannot be considered due to, for example, previous litigation).