Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140306_0001628.PA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 20:57:50
Document Index: 333058829

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9541', '§ 9542', '§ 9543', '§ 9545', '§ 9545', '§ 9545']

| [U] Commonwealth v. Brown
[U] Commonwealth v. Brown
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appelleev.WILLIAM BROWN Appellant
Appeal from the PCRA Order of May 16, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0207801-2005 BEFORE: ALLEN, STABILE, AND STRASSBURGER, * JJ. MEMORANDUM
Appellant William Brown, pro se, appeals from the May 16, 2013 order dismissing as untimely his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Also pending before this Court are Appellant's January 15, 2014 and February 12, 2014 applications for relief seeking redress for the Commonwealth's untimely brief. We affirm the order and deny the application for relief.
The record reveals Appellant pled guilty to third degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime.[1] On May 25, 2006, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 40 to 80 years of incarceration. Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence. On May 21, 2007, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition. The PCRA court dismissed that petition on January 9, 2008. In a memorandum of January 13, 2009, this Court affirmed the dismissal as to all but one claim. On the remaining claim, we remanded to the PCRA court for a determination of whether counsel failed to consult with Appellant regarding a direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Brown, 968 A.2d 787 (Pa.Super. 2009), unpublished memorandum, at 10. The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing and once again dismissed Appellant's petition. This Court affirmed the PCRA court's decision on October 8, 2010. Commonwealth v. Brown, 15 A.3d 521 (Pa.Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 1209 (Pa. 2011).
On May 16, 2011, Appellant filed the instant pro se petition, which he titled a "Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Nunc Pro Tunc." PCRA Petition, 5/16/11. Appellant's petition alleges he is innocent and counsel's ineffective assistance induced him to enter the guilty plea. Id. at 1. Specifically, Appellant alleges that counsel failed to interview witnesses, investigate various defenses, and communicate sufficiently with Appellant. Id. at 1-2. Appellant did not allege any facts in support of the timeliness of his petition.
On February 15, 2013, [2] the PCRA court filed notice of its intent to dismiss the petition. Appellant did not respond to the Rule 907 notice, and the PCRA court entered the order on appeal on May 16, 2013. Appellant filed this timely appeal on May 24, 2013.
The PCRA is the sole means of obtaining collateral review of any claim that falls within its ambit. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542; Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011). Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are cognizable under the PCRA. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). Thus, the PCRA court was correct in treating Appellant's May 16, 2011 filing as a PCRA petition.
The PCRA contains the following restrictions governing the timeliness of any PCRA petition.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). The PCRA's timeliness requirements are jurisdictional. Watts, 23 A.3d at 983. Pennsylvania courts lack jurisdiction to entertain an untimely petition. Id.
As noted above, Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his May 25, 2006 judgment of sentence. Thus, his judgment of sentence became final on June 26, 2006, at the expiration the 30-day appeal period. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Pursuant to § 9545(b)(1), Appellant had until June 26, 2007 to file a timely PCRA petition. Appellant's May 16, 2011 petition is facially untimely, and Appellant does not allege that any of the timeliness exceptions set forth in § 9545(b)(1) applies. Thus, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing Appellant's petition as untimely.[3]
Order affirmed. Applications for relief denied. Judgment Entered. Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the