Court Opinion

ID: 9365605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 17:07:48.389249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.338017
License: Public Domain

J-S38032-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 ANTONIO SAUNDERS                        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                     Appellant           :
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 KEVIN RANSOM                            :   No. 1438 EDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered April 11, 2022,
           in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County,
                Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2020-02219.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                 FILED JANUARY 24, 2023

     Antonio Saunders appeals from the trial court’s order denying his

amended petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

     Saunders is an inmate currently in the custody of the Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at the State Correctional Institution

(“SCI”) at Dallas.   In 2019, a jury convicted Saunders of forgery, identity

theft, and related charges. On August 2, 2019, the trial court sentenced him

to an aggregate term of 52 to 104 months of imprisonment. The trial court

denied Saunders’ post-sentence motion, and Saunders filed a timely appeal

to this Court. We affirmed Saunders’ judgment of sentence on January 4,

2021. Commonwealth v. Saunders, 248 A.3d 459 (Pa. Super. 2021) (non-

precedential decision). Saunders did not seek further review.
J-S38032-22

     Meanwhile, on March 12, 2020, Saunders filed a civil complaint for

habeas corpus relief in which he named SCI-Dallas Superintendent Kevin

Ransom, as the respondent. On June 16, 2020, counsel for the DOC entered

her appearance. Thereafter, Saunders filed a motion to amend his habeas

corpus petition, as well as other claims for relief. On August 31, 2020, the

DOC filed a response. By order December 29, 2021, the trial court denied

Saunders’ petition without prejudice to file an amended petition. Saunders

did so on January 12, 2022. The DOC filed a response on February 7, 2022,

and Saunders filed a response to the DOC’s filing on February 22, 2022.

     By order entered April 9, 2022, the trial court denied Saunders’

amended petition. Saunders appealed to this Court. Both Saunders and the

trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

     Saunders raises the following six issues on appeal verbatim:

        I.     Whether [Saunders] was maliciously prosecuted
               without a determination of probable cause by the
               neutral issuing authority after a warrantless arrest in
               violation of the existing Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal
               Procedure 540(E)?

        II.    Whether Appellee Superintendent Kevin Ransom,
               have a claim against [Saunders], to detain him in
               restraint’s of his liberty, in consonant with due process
               of law, when there is no basis in authority without a
               determination of probable cause as prescribed by
               Pa.R.Crim.P. 540(E)?

        III.   Whether the Court erred in denying [Saunders]
               Habeas Corpus Relief when [Saunders’] claims ambit,
               the preliminary arraignment neutral issuing authority
               determination of no probable cause or the illegal
               commitment in which habeas lies and not the truth

                                     -2-
J-S38032-22

               finding proceedings such as trial, conviction or
               sentence?

         IV.   Whether the Court erred denying [Saunders] Writ of
               Habeas Corpus relief when it may be involved only
               when remedies in the ordinary course have been
               exhausted or not available because [Saunders’]
               Counsel was ineffective assistance of counsel for
               failing to raise the malicious prosecution claim on
               direct appeal and malicious prosecution claims is not
               legally cognizable under the PCRA?

         V.    Whether the Commonwealth discriminated against
               [Saunders] by depriving him equal protection of law
               as prescribed in Pa.R.Crim.P. 540(E) and treated
               [Saunders] differently than other people in like
               situation when the neutral issuing authority
               determines that no probable cause exist and are
               discharged of charges but [Saunders] was
               prosecuted; in violation of the existing Pennsylvania
               Rule of Law?

         VI.   Whether the Commonwealth, Northampton County
               filed a filed a civil action Praecipe for entry of
               judgment in case No. C-48-cv-2019-07363 without
               giving [Saunders] notice nor probable cause after a
               warrantless arrest and no determination of probable
               cause, in regards to companion case No. CP-48-Cr-
               00538-2019 while [Saunders] was being transferred
               to the care, custody and control of the Appellee; the
               civil action was initiated and procured?

Saunders’ Brief at 4-5.

      The trial court did not expressly address these claims because it found

that habeas corpus relief was not available to Saunders and that Saunders

                                    -3-
J-S38032-22

could pursue his claims via a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”).1 The court explained:

               [T]he same basic flaw pervades all of [Saunders’] claims.
           All of them arise out of matters at, or prior to, his sentencing
           after conviction. “Where a person is restrained by virtue of
           sentence after conviction for a criminal offense, the writ of
           habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had
           by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.”
           [42 Pa.C.S.A.] § 6503(b). Further, Section 9542 of the
           PCRA provides, in relevant part:

                     This subchapter provides for an action by which
              . . . persons serving illegal sentences may obtain
              collateral relief.   The action established in this
              subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining
              collateral relief and encompasses all other common
              law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that
              exist when this subchapter takes effect, including
              habeas corpus and coram nobis.

           42 Pa.C.S. § 9542[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 8/12/22, at 2-3 (unnumbered).

        Our review of the record and relevant case law supports the trial court’s

conclusion. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 199 A.3d 889, 891 (Pa.

Super. 2018) (citing Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 985-86

(2002) (reiterating that “both the PCRA and the state habeas corpus statute

contemplate that the PCRA subsumes the writ of habeas corpus in

circumstances where the PCRA provides a remedy for the claim”).

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                           -4-
J-S38032-22

      Indeed, Saunders has filed a counseled PCRA petition at No. CP-48-CR-

00538-2019, through which he can pursue claims that challenge his

convictions. However, because Saunders cannot seek such relief by filing a

habeas corpus petition, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Saunders’

amended petition.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/24/2023

                                    -5-