J-S87031-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

HARRY BECKETT

Appellant No. 1980 MDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 23, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0003393-1991

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2016

Harry Beckett appeals pro se from the trial court’s order dismissing his 

“State Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which the trial court treated as a serial 

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. 

§§ 9541-9546.1 Beckett’s claim has been previously litigated, is patently 

untimely and does not meet a time-bar exception under the PCRA. Thus, we 

affirm.

In November 1992, a jury convicted Beckett of first-degree murder; he 

was sentenced to life in prison. This Court affirmed Beckett’s judgment of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (both PCRA 

and state habeas corpus statute contemplate that PCRA subsumes writ of 

habeas corpus in circumstances where PCRA provides remedy for claim); 

see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542.
J-S87031-16

- 2 -

sentence, after which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance 

of appeal. Beckett filed three separate PCRA petitions, each of which was 

dismissed. This Court affirmed each dismissal. In January 2014, Beckett 

filed a motion for relief in the form of two letters sent to the PCRA court 

judge. The court dismissed the motion, treating it as a serial PCRA petition, 

and ruled that it did not set forth any grounds upon which the court could 

provide relief. On appeal, our Court affirmed the dismissal in January 2015, 

finding the motion was time-barred and that Beckett did not raise any 

exceptions to the PCRA’s time limitation. 

On May 21, 2015, Beckett filed the instant “Writ of Habeas Corpus” 

alleging that newly-discovered facts proves his innocence in connection with 

his murder conviction. Specifically, Beckett avers that he has new evidence 

from the Department of Veteran Affairs establishing that he suffered from a 

physical disability that would have made it impossible for him to carry out 

the crime. On August 25, 2015, the trial court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 

notice of its intention to dismiss Beckett’s petition. Beckett filed a response 

on October 21, 2015. The court dismissed his petition on October 23, 2015. 

This appeal follows.

In the current petition, Beckett raises the same newly-discovered facts 

claim that he asserted at trial, in prior PCRA petitions, and on collateral 

appeal; thus, it is previously litigated. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(3). 

However, even if the claim were not previously litigated, Beckett’s petition is 
J-S87031-16

- 3 -

patently untimely and he does not plead and prove a timeliness exception.2 

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).3

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/8/2016

____________________________________________

2 Beckett has attached a letter from the VA Department, his certificate of 

discharge from active duty, and notes from a peripheral nerve examination 

from a VA medical center all indicating that he has “regional pain syndrome” 

which is exhibited by weakened grip strength, decreased strength in 

mobility, tremors of the upper extremities, and numbness. However, as the 

Commonwealth points out, this diagnosis constituted the medical reason for 

his discharge from the military in 1991 – thus, it is not “newly” discovered.

3 We, herein, deny Beckett’s pro se “Emergency Leave of the Court” motion 

asking this Court to deem the District Attorney’s brief as moot. The motion 

is indecipherable and, as stated, he is entitled to no relief as he has not 

established that the trial court had jurisdiction over his untimely petition.