J

- S79025

- 18

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

v.

CHARLES SMITH

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 689 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Order March 21, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0005603

- 2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED: JANUARY 30, 2019 Appellant, Charles Smith, appeals pro se from the March 21, 2018 order dismissing his filing purporting to seek relief under the Post

- Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”) , 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546

. We quash

. As our resolution is based on th e procedural posture of this case, we decline to set forth the factual background. On November 18, 2016, the Commonwealth charged Appellant via criminal information with drug delivery resulting in death and possession with intent to d eliver a controlled s ubstance. Counsel was appointed but moved to withdraw. After a Grazier hearing, 1 the trial court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and permitted Appellant to proceed pro se . On March 16, 2018, while the charges were still pending,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 See Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998)

.J

- S79025

- 18

- 2

-

Appellant filed a purported pro se PCRA petition. On March 21, 2018, the trial court purported to dismiss the petition. This appeal followed.
We first sua sponte consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Knopick v. Boyle , 189 A.3d 43 2, 436 (Pa. Super. 2018)

. Generally, we only have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. Shearer v. Hafer , 177 A.3d 850, 855 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted). “An order denying
pre - trial habeas corpus relief is not a final order but, rather, is an in terlocutory order and, thus, is not immediately appealable by right.” Commonwealth v. Bibbs , 970 A.2d 440, 452 (Pa. Super. 2009) , appeal denied , 982 A.2d 1227 (Pa. 2009) (cleaned up). Hence, if Appellant’s filing were a motion for pre

trial habeas corpus relief, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. If, however, as the trial court found, Appellant’s filing was a PCRA petition, the March 21, 2018 order was a final order and we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We must look to the contents of a filing t o determine its character and not merely the title a party ascribes thereto. See Commonwealth v. Descardes , 136 A.3d 493, 503 (Pa. 2016). Although titled a PCRA petition, it is evident that the filing was actually a pre

- trial habeas corpus petition. A
P CRA petition may only be filed after a defendant is convicted and a judgment of sentence is issued. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. The PCRA is the means by which a defendant challenges that conviction and/or sentence. See id. In his filing, Appellant did not seek to overturn a conviction or sentence. Instead, he made various arguments about why the case should be dismissed prior toJ

- S79025

- 18

- 3

-

disposition of the charges. Properly construed, this filing constituted a pre

trial petition for habeas corpus relief. Therefore, the trial court’s order denying the petition is interlocutory and we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 0 1/30/2019