J-S45022-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LATISHA LAWRENCE

Appellant No. 1421 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order of May 6, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0007701-2010

BEFORE: BOWES, J., WECHT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 07, 2014

Latisha Lawrence appeals the order entered on May 6, 2013, 

dismissing without a hearing her petition for collateral relief under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Because the record 

indicates that Lawrence has finished serving her sentence at this time, she is 

ineligible for relief under the PCRA. Consequently, we affirm the PCRA 

court’s order denying her PCRA petition.

On March 25, 2011, following a bench trial, Lawrence was found guilty 

of aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another 

person.1 After the trial court rendered its verdict, Lawrence waived the 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702, 2701, and 2705 (respectively).
J-S45022-14

- 2 -

preparation of a pre-sentence investigation, a mental health evaluation, and 

an investigation of her prior record score. See Notes of Testimony, 

3/25/2011, at 68. Lawrence asserted, and the Commonwealth did not 

dispute, that she had no prior offenses. Id. at 67, 69. Immediately after 

rendering its verdict, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of three 

years’ probation. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/8/2014, at 1. The sentence 

was set to commence as of March 25, 2011. See Order of Sentence, Waiver 

Trial, 3/25/2011. Lawrence did not file a direct appeal of her judgment of 

sentence. Consequently, her judgment of sentence became final thirty days 

after its entry, on April 24, 2011. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(b)(3) (“[A] judgment 

becomes final at the conclusion of direct review . . . or at the expiration of 

time for seeking the review.”)

On May 24, 2011, Lawrence filed a timely pro se petition for relief 

under the PCRA. On or about November 28, 2011, the PCRA court 

appointed counsel to represent Lawrence. On January 27, 2012, counsel 

filed an amended PCRA petition and filed a supplement to that petition on 

September 14, 2012. On April 5, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a motion to 

dismiss Lawrence’s petition. At a May 6, 2013 hearing, the PCRA court 

dismissed the petition without taking evidence, apparently based upon the 

court’s belief that Lawrence’s attorney, who was not present, intended to 

seek to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 

(Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 

(Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On May 15, 2013, Lawrence filed the instant 
J-S45022-14

- 3 -

notice of appeal.2 Counsel for Lawrence asserts that the PCRA court 

misunderstood his intention, and that counsel intended to appear and seek 

PCRA relief on Lawrence’s behalf. Thus, Lawrence seeks a remand for an 

evidentiary hearing. See Brief for Lawrence at 6-9.

The PCRA provides for relief only when the petitioner “pleads and 

proves by a preponderance of the evidence” that she is “currently serving a 

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

42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i). On March 25, 2011, Lawrence was sentenced to 

an aggregate term of three years’ probation. As of that date, Lawrence had 

no prior offenses, and Lawrence’s probation began immediately.

Lawrence’s petition was filed when she had served only two months of 

her three-year sentence. However, after numerous extensive delays, at 

least some of them evidently occasioned by the PCRA court, the order 

resolving her PCRA petition was entered on May 6, 2013, and she filed her 

notice of appeal on May 15, 2013, well over one year ago. However, the 

record indicates, and Lawrence does not dispute, that her probation 

terminated on or about March 25, 2014. Consequently, this Court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the instant appeal. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 

____________________________________________

2 On June 12, 2013, the PCRA court filed an order directing Lawrence to 

file a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). However, Lawrence had already filed her Rule 1925(b) 

statement on June 7, 2013. The trial court did not file its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion until January 8, 2014, approximately six months later.
J-S45022-14

- 4 -

80 A.3d 754, 765-66 (Pa. 2013) (holding that “individuals who are not 

serving a state sentence have no liberty interest in and therefore no due 

process right to collateral review of that sentence,” under the PCRA or in 

state or federal habeas corpus proceedings). Consequently, as of this 

writing Lawrence’s eligibility for relief under the PCRA has expired. See 

Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997) (“[T]he denial 

of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his sentence is required by 

[the PCRA]. To be eligible for relief a petition must be currently serving a 

sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole.”). 

This was not the case when the PCRA court dismissed Lawrence’s 

petition, allegedly based upon an misunderstanding. But it is the case now, 

and this precludes this Court from granting her the relief she seeks. “[T]his 

Court may affirm a decision of the trial court if there is any basis on the 

record to support the trial court’s actions, even if we rely on a different 

basis.” Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602, 606 n.5 

(Pa. Super. 2010). In this case, we must do exactly that.

Order affirmed.

Bowes, J. joins the memorandum.

Fitzgerald, J. did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.
J-S45022-14

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/7/2014