J-S51027-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSHUA BROWN

Appellant No. 1481 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0611381-2003

*****

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DONNELL THOMAS

Appellant No. 1491 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0910121-2002

*****

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JAMAL THOMAS

Appellant No. 1501 EDA 2014
J-S51027-15

- 2 -

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1108481-2002

*****

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILLIAM LINCOLN

Appellant No. 1541 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1212651-2001

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2015

Joshua Brown, Donnell Thomas, Jamal Thomas, and William Lincoln 

appeal from separate orders,1entered in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County, which denied their individual petitions filed pursuant to 

the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).2 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Each of the Appellants filed a separate appeal, all of which have been 

consolidated with Joshua Brown’s appeal at 1481 EDA 2014.

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S51027-15

- 3 -

Former Philadelphia Police Officer Jeffrey Walker arrested each of the 

Appellants based upon unrelated incidents. 

Brown was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver 

a controlled substance (PWID)3and criminal conspiracy4on February 4, 

2003. Brown was convicted after a non-jury trial and was sentenced on 

December 8, 2003, to two to four years’ incarceration.5 

Donnell Thomas was charged with PWID after his arrest on September 

11, 2002. He was convicted after a non-jury trial on August 30, 2006, was 

sentenced to four to eight years’ incarceration, and is no longer in custody. 

Jamal Thomas was charged with PWID after his arrest on July 11, 

2002. He pled guilty on May 7, 2003, and was sentenced to a maximum 

sentence of one year of incarceration followed by two years of probation. 

His probation was terminated August 2, 2006. 

Lincoln was arrested and charged with PWID on December 13, 2001. 

Lincoln pled guilty and was sentenced on March 12, 2002, to 15 to 30 

____________________________________________

3 35 P.S. § 780-113.

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.

5 The notice of appeal in Brown’s case erroneously references another 

individual, stating he is in custody. Nothing in the record indicates Brown is 

in custody, and according to the criminal docket in his case, his sentence 

was completed no later than December 8, 2007. See Criminal Docket, 

Number CP-51-CR-0611381-2003.
J-S51027-15

- 4 -

months’ incarceration followed by one year of probation. Lincoln’s probation 

was terminated May 5, 2009.

On May 22, 2013, former Officer Walker was arrested and charged 

with police corruption and misconduct. The charges were based upon 

allegations that he planted drugs in order to arrest drug dealers, robbed 

drug dealers of drugs and money, and misreported the amount of drugs and 

money he confiscated. On July 16, 2013, Appellants filed PCRA petitions, 

asserting that each is entitled to a new trial based upon after-discovered 

evidence, since Walker was involved in their arrests.

On February 28, 2014, the PCRA court issued a notice in each of the 

Appellants’ cases stating its intention to dismiss the PCRA petitions pursuant 

to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellants filed responses on March 20, 2014. The 

PCRA court determined that no relief was due and dismissed the petitions 

without a hearing on April 11, 2014. Appellants filed timely notices of 

appeal and court-ordered concise statements of errors complained of on 

appeal.

Appellants raise the following issues for our review:

[1.] Whether the PCRA statute is unconstitutional because under 

Article 1, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which 

provides that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not 

be suspended,” [habeas corpus] is effectively suspended for the 

Appellants in this case? 

[2.] Whether the PCRA statute is unconstitutional under the 4th

and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, 

Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it denies 

Appellants the ability to bring a civil rights action for malicious 

prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
J-S51027-15

- 5 -

[3.] Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants’ PCRA 

petition as barred [under] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543 because Appellants 

are no longer serving their sentences as held by the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 

548 Pa. 544 (1997)?

[4.] Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in 

Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 548 Pa. 544 (1997), as applied to 

Appellants, violates the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. 

Constitution because it denies Appellants the ability to bring a 

civil rights action for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983?

[5.] Whether the trial court erred in failing to allow Appellants to 

present evidence and testimony regarding their actual 

innocence?

[6.] Whether the trial court erred in holding Appellants lacked 

jurisdiction to challenge their convictions in a PCRA hearing 

where Appellants can allege severe civil and social consequences 

resulting from their wrongful conviction?

[7.] Whether the trial court erred in holding Appellants lacked 

standing to challenge their convictions in a PCRA hearing where 

Appellants can allege severe civil and social consequences 

resulting from their wrongful conviction?

[8.] Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants’ PCRA 

petition without having any evidence entered into the record 

regarding the police officers involved, including former Police 

Officer Jeffrey Walker, and the circumstances surrounding 

Appellants’ arrest and conviction?

Brief for Appellants, at viii-x.

Before we may address the issues raised, we must first determine 

whether Appellants are eligible for relief pursuant to the PCRA. Eligibility for 

relief under the PCRA is governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543, which provides in 

pertinent part: 

(a) General rule.-- To be eligible for relief under this 

subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence all of the following: 
J-S51027-15

- 6 -

(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime 

under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the 

time relief is granted: 

(i) Currently serving a sentence of 

imprisonment, probation or parole for the 

crime; 

(ii) Awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the 

crime; or 

(iii) Serving a sentence which must expire before the 

person may commence serving the disputed 

sentence. 

42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a) (emphasis added). Indeed, “[e]ligibility for relief 

under the PCRA is dependent upon the petitioner currently serving a 

sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole for the crime.” 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 761-62 (Pa. 2013). Stated 

another way, “the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving 

his sentence is required by the plain language of the statute.” 

Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997).

Instantly, the record reveals that none of the Appellants was 

incarcerated, on probation, or on parole for the crimes in which former 

officer Walker was involved in the arrest. It is inconsequential that 

Appellants raise issues based upon their constitutional rights, since “the 

constitutional nature of a collateral claim does not overcome the legislature’s 

restrictions on collateral review.” Turner, 80 A.3d at 767. Thus, Appellants 

are entitled to no relief pursuant to the PCRA. Turner, supra; Ahlborn, 

supra.

Orders affirmed.
J-S51027-15

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2015