Court Opinion

ID: 9386474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 16:06:45.202293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.523643
License: Public Domain

J-S03035-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    MAHMOUD ABUHADBA                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1931 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 1, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000704-2015

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    MAHMOUD ABUHADBA                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1933 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 1, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000700-2015

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                              FILED APRIL 12, 2023

        Mahmoud Abuhadba (“Abuhadba”) appeals from the orders dismissing

the petitions he filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We

affirm.

        We summarize the factual and procedural history of this appeal as

follows. In March of 2015, Abuhadba was on parole for convictions from 2013.
____________________________________________

1   See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S03035-23

The Pennsylvania State Police suspected Abuhadba’s involvement in trafficking

drugs, and state troopers, along with Abuhadba’s parole officer, surveilled

Abuhadba and observed suspected drug transactions at his house. Later that

day, Abuhadba’s parole officer moved in on foot to stop Abuhadba from driving

away from his house.     As Abuhadba subsequently admitted, he possessed

heroin with the intent to deliver at the time, drove away as his parole officer

was opening Abuhadba’s car door, put the officer in fear of serious imminent

bodily injury by physical menace, and drove while under the influence of

heroin. See Guilty Plea Form, 10/2/15, at 1.

      The Commonwealth charged Abuhadba with aggravated assault and

other offenses related to his flight from his parole officer at docket number

700 of 2015 (“docket 700 of 2015”) and possession of a controlled substance

with the intent to deliver (“PWID”) and driving under the influence (“DUI”) at

docket number 704 of 2015 (“docket 704 of 2015”) (collectively, the “present

cases”).   In September 2015, Abuhadba, who was represented by counsel

(“plea counsel”), entered open guilty pleas to the aggravated assault at docket

700 of 2015 and PWID and DUI at docket 704 of 2015.             The trial court

accepted Abuhadba’s pleas and subsequently held a sentencing hearing.

During the sentencing hearing, the parties and the trial court discussed

Abuhadba’s pending parole violations for his prior convictions: Abuhadba’s

plea counsel noted that Abuhadba would be separately punished for his parole

violations, but that due to his prior convictions, Abuhadba’s prior record score

was higher than counsel had anticipated.       See N.T., 12/8/15, at 4-6, 8.

                                     -2-
J-S03035-23

Abuhadba declined the trial court’s invitation to withdraw his guilty pleas in

the present cases. See id. at 6. The trial court then sentenced Abuhadba to

an aggregate term of imprisonment of five to ten years. Additionally, the trial

court ordered restitution at docket 700 of 2015 for the parole officer’s medical

costs and ordered credit for time served. Abuhadba filed timely motions for

reconsideration of the sentences, which the trial court denied on December

23, 2015. Abuhadba did not file a direct appeal.

       In 2019, Abuhadba filed a prior pro se PCRA petition at docket 700 of

2015 challenging the imposition of restitution.    The PCRA court appointed

counsel, but, following a hearing, dismissed Abuhadba’s petition as untimely

in June 2021. Abuhadba did not file an appeal.

       Abuhadba, acting pro se, filed PCRA petitions in the present cases in

July 2021.2 The PCRA court appointed present counsel (“PCRA counsel”), who

filed amended petitions asserting that Abuhadba recently obtained information

from the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) that he began serving the

sentences in the present cases in May 2021, after he served the backtime for

his parole violations.3       See Amended PCRA Petition, 10/25/21, at 4-5.

____________________________________________

2 Abuhadba filed the instant PCRA petition, technically, his second, at 700 of
2015 before the time for appealing the dismissal of his first PCRA petition at
700 of 2015. Because Abuhabda did not appeal the order dismissing the
previous PCRA petition at docket 700 of 2015, the PCRA court retained
jurisdiction to consider the second PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v.
Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849, 852 (Pa. Super. 2016).

3 See 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6138(a)(5)(i)(requiring a parolee to serve the balance
of his original sentence before serving a new sentence).

                                           -3-
J-S03035-23

Abuhadba’s petition asserted plea counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to

inform him that the sentences in the present cases would run consecutively

to his backtime. See id. at 5-6. He alleged that he would not have pleaded

guilty had he known that the sentences in the present cases would begin

running in 2021, rather than 2015 when the trial court imposed the sentence.

See id. at 8.

       Abuhadba attached to the petitions numerous exhibits, including: (1) a

copy of a July 2016 DC16-E form stating that Abuhadba’s maximum backtime

sentences for his prior convictions would expire in 2021 and that the DOC had

lodged detainers for the present cases, see Amended PCRA Petition, 7/19/21,

Exhibit A, at 1, 4; (2) Abuhadba’s April 2019 inmate request form asking for

DOC forms concerning the sentences in the present cases, to which a staff

member replied that Abuhadba needed to ask the trial court for the forms,

see id., Exhibit D, at 1 (unnumbered); and (3) Abuhadba’s May 2021 inmate

request form asking about the status of his sentences, and the staff member’s

answer, “You rolled to a new number.” See id., Exhibit D, at 2 (unnumbered).

The staff member also indicated that a counselor had already explained why

Abuhadba was still in prison after serving the backtime for his parole

violations. See id., Exhibit D, at 2 (unnumbered).4

____________________________________________

4 Abuhadba’s pro se PCRA petitions had attached a May 2021 DL-16E form,
which indicated the sentences in the present cases would commence on May
20, 2021. PCRA counsel appears to have inadvertently used a duplicate copy
of the July 2016 DL-16E form instead of the May 2021 form as Exhibit C
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S03035-23

       The PCRA court held hearings, at which Abuhadba and plea counsel

testified, and considered supplemental briefs from the parties.      On July 1,

2022, the PCRA court dismissed the PCRA petitions concluding that they were

untimely and, in any event, lacked merit. Abuhadba timely appealed, and

both he and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.5             This Court

consolidated these appeals.

       Abuhadba raises the following issues for review:

       1. . . . Abuhadba[’s PCRA] petition was timely under the one (1)
          year statutory exception, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) or the
          newly discovered [facts] exception.

       2. [Abuhadba’s] guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily
          entered and was the product of ineffective assistance of
          counsel.

Abuhadba’s Brief at 2.

       Our standard of review is well settled:

              Our review of a PCRA court’s decision is limited to examining
       whether the PCRA court's findings of fact are supported by the
       record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal
       error. We view the record in the light most favorable to the
       prevailing party in the PCRA Court. We are bound by any
       credibility determinations made by the PCRA court where they are
       supported by the record. However, we review the PCRA court's
       legal conclusions de novo.

____________________________________________

throughout these proceedings. This oversight, however, does not affect our
disposition.

5  The PCRA court concluded that its order and opinion of July 1, 2022,
addressed the issues raised in Abuhadba’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. We
cite to the court’s July 1, 2022 order and opinion as the “PCRA Court Opinion.”

                                           -5-
J-S03035-23

Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 954 (Pa. 2018) (internal citation

and quotations omitted).

      Under the PCRA, any petition “including a second or subsequent petition,

shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).     A judgment of sentence becomes final “at the

conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme

Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the

expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The

PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a court may

not address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely

filed. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).

      Abuhadba concedes that the instant PCRA petitions, which he filed in

2021, were facially untimely because he did not file within one year of his

convictions becoming final in 2016.    In his first issue, he asserts that he

established an exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements.

      Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the

petitioner can plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth in section

9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa.

Super. 2013) (providing that a PCRA court must dismiss an untimely petition

if no exception is pleaded and proven). Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) provides an

exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement if “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[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

                                     -6-
J-S03035-23

The focus of this exception is on newly discovered facts, not on a newly

discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.               See

Commonwealth v. Lopez, 249 A.3d 993, 1000 (Pa. 2021). “Due diligence

demands that the petitioner take reasonable steps to protect his own

interests.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015)

(internal citation omitted).

       Abuhadba argues that he first learned that the sentences in the present

cases commenced in May 2021, when he received DOC forms that same

month, and exercised reasonable diligence when discovering the information

necessary to seek relief. He asserts that he did not know he would have to

serve the backtime for his parole violations before serving the sentences in

the present cases and that neither the trial court nor plea counsel ensured he

was aware of all legal ramifications of his pleas. He adds that under these

circumstances, a court cannot impute to him knowledge of the law requiring

service of backtime for violations of parole before new sentences.6

       The PCRA court initially noted that Abuhadba apparently misunderstood

61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6138(a)(5), which required to him to serve the backtime for
____________________________________________

6 Abuhadba also alleges that plea counsel had a deficient knowledge of the
law about the service of backtime for parole violations and that deficiency
constitutes ineffectiveness. However, it is well settled that allegations of prior
counsel’s ineffectiveness do not state an exception to the PCRA timeliness
requirements unless prior counsel’s ineffectiveness rose to the level of
ineffectiveness per se. See Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d 1123,
1130 (Pa. 2018). Abuhadba does not argue per se ineffective assistance of
counsel as a new fact. Moreover, Abuhadba does not allege that plea counsel
affirmatively misrepresented the order in which his backtime for the parole
violations and the sentences in the present cases would run.

                                           -7-
J-S03035-23

his parole violations before the sentences in the present case.     See PCRA

Court Opinion, 7/1/22, at 10-11 (unnumbered). Nevertheless, the PCRA court

concluded that Abuhadba failed to state a timeliness exception under section

9545(b)(1)(ii) because the sentencing transcript made clear that his parole

violations would result in sentencing consequences additional to the sentences

in the present cases.   See id. at 11-12 (unnumbered).        The PCRA court

credited plea counsel’s testimony that he discussed the parole violation

consequences with Abuhadba and Abuhadba knew that the consequences of

his parole violations could not be determined until after sentencing in the

present cases. See id. Further, the PCRA court noted that Abuhadba could

have obtained at any time the information that claimed he first learned in May

2021, and that Abuhadba took no further steps to investigate his sentences

after asking for DOC sentencing forms in 2019. See id. at 12-13. In sum,

the PCRA court concluded that Abuhadba failed to establish that the facts upon

which his claim was predicated were unknown or could not be discovered by

the exercise of due diligence in discovering the fact that the sentences in the

present cases would begin to run in May 2021. See id. at 13.

      Following our review, we conclude that the record supports the PCRA

court’s finding and its conclusion that Abuhadba did not exercise due diligence

is free of legal error. The parties’ statements at the sentencing hearing and

plea counsel’s testimony at the PCRA hearing support the PCRA court’s finding

that Abuhadba knew his parole violation would result in prison time additional

to the sentence in the present cases. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/1/22, at 11-

                                     -8-
J-S03035-23

12; see also N.T., 2/3/22, at 9-11; N.T., 12/8/15, at 4-6, 8   Abuhadba had

further notice that the maximum date of his backtime for his parole violations

ended in May 2021 and the DOC had lodged detainers for him based on the

sentences in the present cases in 2016, when he received the July 2016 DL-

16E form. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/1/22, at 12-13; see also Amended

PCRA Petition, Exhibit A. We also agree with the PCRA court that Abuhadba’s

2019 inmate requests for information about the sentences in the present cases

evidenced his concern about how these sentences would run with his backtime

for his parole violations. See PCRA Court Opinion, 7/1/22, at 12-13; see also

Amended PCRA Petition, Exhibit D at 1 (unnumbered). Additionally, at that

same time, Abuhadba had filed his first PCRA petition in docket 700 of 2015,

and the PCRA court had appointed counsel in that matter. However, nothing

in the record shows he took any steps to clarify his concerns that he would

serve his sentences in the present case to consecutive to his parole backtime.

      For these reasons, we conclude that the PCRA court properly rejected

Abuhadba’s assertions that the May 2021 forms constituted a newly

discovered fact that the sentences in the present cases would not commence

until after he served the backtime for his parole violations. Abuhadba failed

to demonstrate that he obtained a newly discovered fact or that he exercised

due diligence in discovering this information earlier.   Thus, his arguments

                                    -9-
J-S03035-23

predicated upon the PCRA time-bar exception in section 9545(b)(1)(ii) merit

no relief. See Staton, 184 A.3d at 954.7

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/12/2023

____________________________________________

7 Because Abuhadba has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion or error of
law in the PCRA court’s conclusion his petitions were untimely, we agree with
the PCRA court that it lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of the instant
PCRA petitions. See Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1093. Accordingly, we will not
address the merits of Abuhadba’s second issue on appeal challenging plea
counsel’s ineffectiveness as a basis to withdraw his pleas.

                                          - 10 -