Court Opinion

ID: 9966282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 16:09:10.690861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.330548
License: Public Domain

J-S07026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANDREW JOSHUA BAUMGARDNER                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1485 MDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 3, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-28-CR-0000378-2018

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                   FILED: MAY 6, 2024

       Andrew Joshua Baumgardner appeals pro se from the order denying his

motion to vacate, set aside or correct illegal sentence/wrongful conviction,

nunc pro tunc. The lower court treated this as a serial petition under the Post

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

       On January 22, 2019, the trial court convicted Baumgardner of

numerous offenses resulting from his illegal use of someone’s credit card. On

March 13, 2019, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 110 to

364 months in prison. Baumgardner filed a timely appeal to this Court. On

December 24, 2019, we affirmed Baumgardner’s judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S07026-24

Commonwealth v. Baumgardner, 225 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2014) (non-

precedential decision). Baumgardner did not seek further review.

      On January 30, 2020, Baumgardner filed a timely pro se PCRA petition.

The PCRA court appointed counsel. On March 5, 2020, PCRA counsel filed a

“no-merit” letter and a motion to withdraw, pursuant to Commonwealth v.

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d

213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), based upon his conclusion that

Baumgardner’s petition was without merit.      On March 25, 2020, the PCRA

court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition

without a hearing. Baumgardner filed a pro se response. By order entered

May 15, 2020, the PCRA court dismissed Baumgardner’s petition and granted

PCRA counsel’s motion to withdraw. Baumgardner appealed. On October 28,

2020, this Court dismissed the appeal after Baumgardner failed to file a brief.

      Over the next three years, Baumgardner submitted a series of filings in

his quest for post-conviction relief. The court below treated each filing as a

serial PCRA petition and dismissed each one as untimely.        Undaunted, on

September 21, 2023, Baumgardner filed a “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Illegal Sentence/Wrongful Conviction, NUNC PRO TUNC.” Once again,

the court treated this motion as a PCRA petition, his eighth. The next day,

the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition as

untimely, and noted that Baumgardner did not plead a time-bar exception.

Baumgardner filed a response. By order entered October 3, 2023, the PCRA

                                     -2-
J-S07026-24

court denied Baumgardner’s serial petition.           This appeal followed.   Both

Baumgardner and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       We first     address whether the PCRA court properly considered

Baumgardner’s filing for post-conviction relief as a serial PCRA petition.1 See

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (providing that the PCRA “shall be the sole means of

obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and

statutory remedies for the same purpose”); Commonwealth v. Descardes,

136 A.3d 493, 499 (Pa. 2016) (explaining that “claims that could be brought

under the PCRA must be brought under that Act. . . . A claim is cognizable

under the PCRA if the . . . conviction resulted from one of seven enumerated

errors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)”).

       In the petition at issue, Baumgardner asserted that, given several

constitutional violations, he “was denied a fair trial [and the trial court]

imposed an illegal sentence.”          Motion, 9/21/23, at 1.   These claims are

cognizable under the PCRA.             See     42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9543(a)(2)(i) and

(a)(2)(vii). Thus, the PCRA court properly considered Baumgardner’s motion

as a serial PCRA petition.

       Treating Baumgardner’s latest filing as a PCRA petition, we next

determine whether the PCRA court correctly concluded that it was untimely

____________________________________________

1  Baumgardner’s brief consists of numbered paragraphs.          Although he
attempts to comply with the briefing requirements, his brief does not contain
a statement of questions involved. In addition, this Court received a letter
from the Commonwealth stating that it did not intend to file a brief.

                                           -3-
J-S07026-24

filed, and that Baumgardner failed to establish a time-bar exception.        The

timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional. Commonwealth v.

Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). Generally, a petition for

relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed

within one year of the date the judgment becomes final unless the petition

alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for filing the

petition is met.

      The three narrow statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar are as

follows: “(1) interference by government officials in the presentation of the

claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized constitutional

right.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii)). In addition, exceptions to the PCRA’s

time bar must be pled in the petition and may not be raised for the first time

on appeal.        Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super.

2007); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that issues not raised before the

lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

Moreover, a PCRA petitioner must file his petition “within one year of the date

the claim could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).

      Finally, if a PCRA petition is untimely and the petitioner has not pled and

proven an exception “neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction

over the petition.      Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal

authority    to    address   the   substantive   claims.”   Commonwealth      v.

Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

                                        -4-
J-S07026-24

       Here, Baumgardner’s judgment of sentence became final on January 23,

2020, thirty days after this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence and the

time for filing a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court

expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Therefore, Baumgardner had until

January 22, 2021 to file a timely PCRA petition. As Baumgardner filed the

petition at issue in 2023, it is patently untimely unless he has satisfied his

burden of pleading and proving that one of the enumerated exceptions

applies. See Hernandez, supra.

       As noted by the PCRA court, Baumgardner failed to plead any exception

to the PCRA’s time bar in the petition at issue.      Instead, he raised an

undeveloped claim of newly-discovered facts in his Rule 907 response.

Additionally, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, Baumgardner again raised his

newly-discovered fact claim, which involves an alleged violation of Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This claim is improperly being raised for the

first time on appeal. Burton, supra.

       In sum, Baumgardner’s motion is cognizable under the PCRA, but it is

untimely, and he has failed to establish a time-bar exception.2 As such, both

the PCRA court and this Court lack jurisdiction to consider his substantive

____________________________________________

2 To the extent, Baumgardner requests to file a nunc pro tunc post-sentence

motion, it is also untimely. A nunc pro tunc motion must be filed within 30
days of the entry of sentence and demonstrate good cause for missing the
ten-day deadline set forth in Pa.R.Crim.P. 720. As Baumgardner’s request
was filed years beyond this 30-day deadline, it is clearly untimely.

                                           -5-
J-S07026-24

claims. Derrickson, supra.     We therefore affirm the PCRA court’s order

denying him post-conviction relief.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/6/2024

                                      -6-