J-S55022-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

BRUCE X. COOPER

Appellant No. 2565 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 26, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0438741-1984

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2018

Appellant Bruce X. Cooper pro se appeals from the July 26, 2017 order 

of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which dismissed his 

seventh petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. Upon review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case is undisputed.1 On July 13, 

1985, a jury convicted Appellant of second-degree murder, robbery, and 

possessing instruments of crime. The court sentenced Appellant on April 14, 

1987, to a total term of life imprisonment. Post-verdict motions were denied, 

and Appellant’s direct appeal was dismissed on September 3, 1987 for failure 

____________________________________________

1 Unless otherwise noted, these facts are taken from our prior decision 

affirming the dismissal of Appellant’s fifth PCRA petition. See 

Commonwealth v. Cooper, No. 405 EDA 2016, unpublished memorandum 

at 1-3 (Pa. Super. filed August 22, 2017). 
J-S55022-18

- 2 -

to file a brief. Our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of 

appeal on December 16, 1987. 

Appellant filed a PCRA petition on May 18, 1987. The PCRA court 

dismissed the petition because Appellant’s direct appeal was still pending. On 

August 19, 1988, Appellant filed his next PCRA petition. The PCRA court 

appointed counsel to represent Appellant, and the court ultimately denied 

relief on June 1, 1994. We affirmed the denial of relief and our Supreme Court 

denied allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 669 A.2d 408 

(Pa. Super. 1994) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 679 A.2d 

227 (Pa. 1995). 

Appellant filed another PCRA petition on February 5, 1999. The PCRA 

court dismissed the petition as untimely on July 21, 1999. Once again, we 

affirmed the denial of relief and the Supreme Court denied allowance of 

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 876 A.2d 460 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 889 A.2d 87 (Pa. 2005). On 

October 22, 2003, Appellant filed yet another PCRA petition, which the PCRA 

court dismissed as untimely. We affirmed the dismissal and our Supreme 

Court denied allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 964 A.2d 

432 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 967 

A.2d 958 (Pa. 2009). 

On July 7, 2014, Appellant filed his fifth PCRA petition, styled as a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the PCRA court dismissed as 

untimely. Appellant appealed to this Court. While his appeal was pending, 
J-S55022-18

- 3 -

Appellant filed his sixth PCRA petition on February 1, 2016, which he amended 

on August 31, 2016. On October 6, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw 

his sixth PCRA petition. 

On November 1, 2016, Appellant filed the instant—his seventh—PCRA 

petition, which he amended on November 14, 2016. On July 26, 2017, relying 

upon Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000), the PCRA court 

dismissed the instant PCRA petition, because Appellant’s appeal from the fifth 

PCRA petition was pending in this Court. Appellant timely appealed to this 

Court.2 Shortly thereafter, on August 22, 2017, we issued a decision, 

affirming the dismissal of Appellant’s fifth PCRA petition. See 

Commonwealth v. Cooper, 175 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished 

memorandum). Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal in the 

Supreme Court. 

On appeal, we preliminarily must determine whether the PCRA court 

erred in dismissing Appellant’s petition under Lark. 

In Lark, our Supreme Court held that while a “PCRA appeal is pending, 

a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of 

the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review is sought, 

or upon the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Lark, 746 A.2d 

at 588. In Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 

2018) (en banc), we reaffirmed that Lark “precludes consideration of a 

____________________________________________

2 Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925
J-S55022-18

- 4 -

subsequent petition from the time a PCRA order is appealed until no further 

review of that order is possible.” Montgomery, 181 A.3d at 364. Here, 

because Appellant’s appeal from the dismissal of his fifth PCRA petition still 

was pending in this Court at the time he filed the instant, his seventh, PCRA 

petition, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. 

Accordingly, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s seventh 

petition for relief under Lark.

3

 

Order affirmed. Objection denied. Application for relief denied. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/15/18

____________________________________________

3 We deny Appellant’s August 23, 2018 “Objection to Commonwealth’s 

Untimely Filed Brief” and his October 1, 2018, “Motion for Contempt of Court 

and for Summary Judgment,” whereby he, inter alia, sought to have the 

Commonwealth held in contempt.