Court Opinion

ID: 9651137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:08:49.289133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:15.129036
License: Public Domain

J-S25011-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ENDO DIAZ                                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2108 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 19, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0000522-2017

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ENDO DIAZ                                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2109 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 19, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0001840-2017

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                             FILED AUGUST 23, 2023

       Appellant Endo Diaz appeals from the order dismissing his first Post-

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition as untimely. Appellant argues that trial

counsel’s abandonment of Appellant satisfies the newly discovered fact

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S25011-23

exception to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar. Appellant also argues that trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. We affirm.

       On April 16, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to third-degree murder,

conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of an instrument of crime (PIC)2

at Docket No. 1840-2017. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to possession

with intent to distribute a controlled substance (PWID)3 at Docket No. 522-

2017 on September 24, 2018. That same day, the trial court imposed an

aggregate     sentence     of   sixteen        and   one-half   to   thirty-three   years’

incarceration. James Berardinelli, Esq. (trial counsel) represented Appellant

at the plea hearing and at sentencing. Appellant did not file any post-sentence

motions or a direct appeal.

       On November 2, 2020, Appellant filed a first pro se PCRA petition listing

both trial court docket numbers. The PCRA court appointed PCRA counsel,

who subsequently filed an amended PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf.

Therein, Appellant claimed that he satisfied the newly discovered facts

exception to the PCRA’s one-year time bar. Am. PCRA Pet., 5/24/22, at 2

(unpaginated). Relevant to this appeal, Appellant also raised a substantive

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to consult with Appellant

about the filing of post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.                 Id. at 1-4

(unpaginated).
____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c), 903(c), and 907 respectively.

3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

                                           -2-
J-S25011-23

      The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on August 19, 2022.

Appellant testified with the aid of a Spanish language interpreter. N.T. PCRA

Hr’g, 8/19/22, at 3-5. Appellant explained that he is not fluent in the English

language and throughout the guilty plea and sentencing process, he had the

assistance of a Spanish language interpreter. Id. at 5-6. Appellant stated

that after he was sentenced, he did not have any further contact with his trial

counsel, and that he never tried to contact trial counsel. Id. at 6-7, 11-12.

Appellant claimed that he filed his pro se PCRA petition about a week after a

fellow Spanish-speaking inmate told him that he could appeal his sentence.

Id. at 6-7. Appellant acknowledged that at the time of sentencing, he was

informed that he had ten days to file a post-sentence motion and thirty days

to file a notice of appeal.   Id. at 9-10.   Further, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

opinion, the PCRA court, which also presided over the plea hearing and the

sentencing hearing, indicated that at sentencing, and under oath, Appellant

unequivocally stated that he did not wish to appeal.           Additionally, at

sentencing, the court reviewed Appellant’s appellate rights with him and

informed Appellant that unless he contacted trial counsel, trial counsel would

not file an appeal.   Appellant refused the opportunity to speak with trial

counsel after sentencing and thereafter did not attempt to contact trial counsel

after sentencing. PCRA Ct. Op., 10/6/22, at 3; N.T. Sentencing Hr’g, 9/24/18,

at 56-57; N.T. PCRA Hr’g, 8/19/22, at 9-12. Trial counsel testified that he

explained the Commonwealth’s plea offer to Appellant with the assistance of

a Spanish language interpreter. N.T. PCRA Hr’g, 8/19/22, at 15-17. Trial

                                     -3-
J-S25011-23

counsel recalled that after sentencing, he did not speak with Appellant further,

and no one contacted him on Appellant’s behalf regarding filing post-sentence

motions or a direct appeal. Id. at 15-18.

      At the conclusion of the hearing, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s

petition. Id. at 28. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal at each trial court

docket number.       The PCRA court did not order Appellant to comply with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

      On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

      1. Did [Appellant’s] PCRA petition satisfy the newly discovered
         facts exception to the PCRA’s time bar?

      2. Did [trial] counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to
         consult with [Appellant] during the thirty days immediately
         following the trial court’s imposition of sentence?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

      In his first issue, Appellant argues that he met the newly discovered fact

exception to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar. Id. at 10-13 (citing, inter alia,

Commonwealth v. Chester, 163 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa. Super. 2017)).

Specifically, Appellant contends that trial counsel “abandoned [Appellant] by

not consulting with him about his appellate rights during the time to file post-

sentence motions and a notice of appeal[,]” and this resulted in the “‘complete

deprivation’”   of   his   right   to   appellate   review.   Id.   at   12   (citing

Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d 1123, 1131 (Pa. 2018)). Appellant

also asserts that he was diligent in discovering that trial counsel had

abandoned him with respect to his direct appeal because Appellant was not

                                         -4-
J-S25011-23

able to contact trial counsel to inquire about appealing his sentence and

Appellant is not fluent in the English language. Id. at 13. Appellant claims

that he promptly filed his PCRA petition after a Spanish-speaking inmate

informed Appellant that he could have appealed his sentence. Id.

      In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review

is well settled:

      [O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is
      limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is
      supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal
      error.    The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when
      supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we
      apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal
      conclusions.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations omitted and formatting altered). “Moreover, it is well settled that

where the result is correct, an appellate court may affirm a lower court’s

decision on any ground without regard to the ground relied upon by the lower

court itself.” Commonwealth v. Lehman, 275 A.3d 513, 520 n.5 (Pa. Super.

2022) (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

      The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a threshold jurisdictional question.

See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating

that “Pennsylvania law makes clear that when a PCRA petition is untimely,

neither this Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition” (citation

and quotation marks omitted)).        “A PCRA petition, including a second or

subsequent one, must be filed within one year of the date the petitioner’s

                                       -5-
J-S25011-23

judgment of sentence became final, unless he pleads and proves one of the

three exceptions outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).” Commonwealth v.

Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa. 2012) (citation and footnote omitted). A judgment

of sentence becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, or at the

expiration of time for seeking such review. See id. at 17.

       Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a

judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of

the following three statutory exceptions:

       (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
       interference by government officials with the presentation of the
       claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth
       or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

       (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to
       the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise
       of due diligence; or

       (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized
       by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court
       of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and
       has been held by that court to apply retroactively.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner asserting one of these exceptions

must file a petition within one year of the date the claim could have first been

presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).4 “It is the petitioner’s burden to

____________________________________________

4 On October 24, 2018, the General Assembly amended Section 9545(b)(2)

and extended the time for filing a petition from sixty days to one year from
the date the claim could have been presented. See 2018 Pa.Legis.Serv.Act
2018-146 (S.B. 915), effective December 24, 2018. The amendment applies
only to claims arising one year before the effective date of this section,
December 24, 2017, or thereafter.

                                           -6-
J-S25011-23

plead and prove that one of the [timeliness] exceptions applies.” Jones, 54

A.3d at 17 (citation omitted and formatting altered).

      To establish the newly discovered fact exception to the PCRA time bar,

“the petitioner must establish that: 1) the facts upon which the claim was

predicated were unknown and 2) could not have been ascertained by the

exercise of due diligence.   If the petitioner alleges and proves these two

components, then the PCRA court has jurisdiction . . . under this subsection.”

Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1272 (Pa. 2007) (citations

omitted and formatting altered). “Due diligence demands that the petitioner

take reasonable steps to protect his own interests. A petitioner must explain

why he could not have learned the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due

diligence. This rule is strictly enforced.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111

A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).

      “Additionally, the focus of this exception is on the newly discovered

facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known

facts.”   Id. (citation omitted and formatting altered).     However, Section

9545(b)(1)(ii) “does not require any merits analysis of an underlying after-

discovered evidence claim.” Id. at 177 (citation and footnote omitted); see

also Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1272.

      Generally, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not constitute a

“fact” for the purposes of invoking the newly discovered facts exception to the

PCRA time-bar found in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).            Commonwealth v.

Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 786 (Pa. 2000). In Bennett, our Supreme

                                     -7-
J-S25011-23

Court recognized an exception to Gamboa-Taylor’s general rule and held that

counsel’s abandonment of a client on direct appeal can constitute a “fact” for

the purposes of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1274; see also

Chester, 163 A.3d at 474 (applying Bennett and holding that the defendant

“properly invoked the timeliness exception at section 9545(b)(1)(ii), by

demonstrating that his counsel had abandoned him[]” by failing to file a

requested direct appeal).

      Subsequently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Bennett

exception to Gamboa-Taylor, and its progeny, applies to instances of

instances “where PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness per se completely forecloses

review of collateral claims.” Peterson, 192 A.3d at 1130. The Peterson

Court explained:

      Abandonment, . . . is only one form of ineffectiveness per se, and
      our decision in Bennett did not limit its application to instances
      of attorney abandonment. To the contrary, in Bennett we
      emphasized that the important distinction for purposes of
      application of the subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception is whether
      counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness results in a partial deprivation of
      review (Gamboa-Taylor and its progeny) or instead completely
      deprives his client of review. See Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1272-74.

Id. at 1131; see also Commonwealth v. Parrish, 273 A.3d 989, 1004 (Pa.

2022) (stating that “a showing that counsel failed to file a requested appeal is

ineffectiveness per se, and prejudice is presumed without the need for proof

because the circumstances are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost

of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified” (citation and

quotation marks omitted). However, “[u]nlike cases involving a failure to file

                                      -8-
J-S25011-23

a requested appeal for which prejudice is presumed, a failure to consult with

the defendant does not constitute ineffectiveness per se.” Parrish, 273 A.3d

at 1005.

      Here, there is no dispute that Appellant’s PCRA petition was facially

untimely.   Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on October 24,

2018, the date on which the time to file a direct appeal expired.       See 42

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (stating that the judgment of sentence becomes final at

the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking the

review); Pa.R.A.P. 903(c)(3) (providing that when no post-sentence motion

has been filed, a notice of appeal to Superior Court must be filed within thirty

days of the imposition of the judgment of sentence in open court). Appellant

filed his pro se PCRA petition on November 2, 2020, more than a year after

the one-year deadline for filing a facially timely PCRA petition expired on

October 24, 2019. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).

      Here, the PCRA court explained:

      On September 24, 2018, at sentencing, [Appellant] stated he did
      not want to appeal, and refused the opportunity to speak with
      [trial] counsel. N.T. 9/24/2018 at 56-57; N.T. 8/19/22 at 9-12.
      Even though this court informed [Appellant] that if he wanted to
      appeal he would need to contact his attorney, he admitted that he
      failed to contact [trial] counsel after sentencing. Id. [Trial]
      counsel, before sentencing, and this court, during sentencing,
      reviewed [Appellant’s] appellate rights with [Appellant]. N.T.
      9/24/2018 at 56-57; N.T. 8/19/22 at 9-21. [Appellant] changed
      his mind about appealing his sentence only after the period to file
      a notice of appeal had expired and failed to take any action in his
      case for over two years. N.T. 8/19/22 at 6-7. This petition is
      facially untimely and [Appellant] fails to establish any exception
      to the timeliness requirement.

                                     -9-
J-S25011-23

PCRA Ct. Op. at 6 (some citations omitted and formatting altered).

      On appeal, Appellant argues that trial counsel’s failure to file a direct

appeal is a newly discovered fact.      Upon review, Appellant’s boilerplate

arguments seem to frame his claim of attorney abandonment as a failure of

trial counsel to consult with him about filing a direct appeal.       As noted

previously, only a claim of ineffectiveness per se that completely deprives a

petitioner of appellate review satisfies the newly discovered facts exception.

See Peterson, 192 A.3d at 1130. In contrast, a counsel’s failure to consult

with a client about an appeal is not an instance of ineffective assistance per

se. See Parrish, 273 A.3d at 1005. In any event, on this record, we agree

with the PCRA court that Appellant’s claims of attorney abandonment fail

because counsel did not abandon him. At sentencing, Appellant stated he did

not want to appeal, and refused the opportunity to speak with trial counsel.

Even though Appellant was informed by the judge at sentencing that if he

wanted to appeal, he would need to contact his attorney, Appellant admitted

at the PCRA hearing that he failed to contact trial counsel after sentencing.

See PCRA Ct. Op. at 6; N.T. Sentencing Hr’g, 9/24/18, at 56-57; N.T. PCRA

Hr’g, 8/19/22, at 9-12. For these reasons, we conclude that Appellant has

failed to plead and prove that trial counsel’s failure to consult with him about

filing post-sentence motions or an appeal was a newly discovered fact,

                                     - 10 -
J-S25011-23

therefore no relief is due.5 See Jones, 54 A.3d at 17; Gamboa-Taylor, 753

A.2d at 786. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order.

       Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/23/2023

____________________________________________

5 Having concluded that Appellant’s    PCRA petition is untimely, we need not
address his substantive claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Miller,
102 A.3d at 992.

                                          - 11 -