J-S30044-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

CONLEY LEON ROBINSON, :

:

Appellant : No. 1126 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order entered June 20, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-22-CR-0002729-1986; 

CP-22-CR-0002735-1986

BEFORE: SHOGAN, RANSOM and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 29, 2017

Conley Leon Robinson (“Robinson”), pro se, appeals from the Order 

denying his Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”).1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. 

On November 3, 1986, Robinson was arrested and charged with two 

counts of robbery and three related offenses. On March 15, 1988, Robinson 

pled guilty to two counts of robbery and the related offenses. The trial court 

 

1 Here, Robinson filed a “Motion to Grant Time Served/Vacate Sentence.” It 

is well-settled that any motion filed after the judgement of sentence 

becomes final will be treated as a petition filed pursuant to the PCRA. 

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2011). Indeed, 

“[the PCRA] shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and 

encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same 

purpose.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. In his Motion, Robinson raises a challenge 

to the legality of his sentence. Because Robinson filed his Motion after his 

judgment of sentence became final, and the PCRA provides a remedy for his 

claims, the Motion is properly treated as a PCRA Petition. 
J-S30044-17

- 2 -

imposed an aggregate prison sentence of ten to twenty years.2 Robinson did 

not file a direct appeal. 

On June 6, 2016, Robinson filed the instant Petition. On June 20, 

2016, the PCRA court denied the Petition. Robinson filed a timely Notice of 

Appeal and a court ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement. 

We review an order [denying] a petition under the PCRA in 

the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA 

level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court 

and the evidence of the record. We will not disturb a PCRA 

court’s ruling if it is supported by the evidence of record and is 

free of legal error. 

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations 

omitted). 

In his Petition, Robinson indicates that the sentence in question has 

expired. PCRA Petition, 6/6/16, at 1. It is well-settled that to be eligible for 

relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must be “currently serving a sentence 

of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(1)(i); see also Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. 

Super. 2006). Here, Robinson would have finished serving his aggregate 

prison sentence of ten to twenty years, at the latest, in 2008. Thus, 

Robinson would not be eligible for relief under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(1)(i). 

 

2 The record includes an Order dated November 16, 1988, which grants 

Robinson credit for time served from November 3, 1986, to March 15, 1988. 
J-S30044-17

- 3 -

However, even if Robinson is currently in prison, his Petition is facially 

untimely under the PCRA and he did not plead and prove any timeliness 

exceptions under the PCRA, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).3

Order affirmed. 

 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/29/2017

 

3 Here, Robinson claims that his sentence is illegal based upon Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court of 

the United States held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal 

Act’s (“ACCA”) definition of a violent felony was unconstitutional. See

Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2557, 2563. However, Robinson was not sentenced 

under the ACCA, and is therefore not entitled to relief under Johnson.