Court Opinion

ID: 9376392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 17:08:27.799247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.614586
License: Public Domain

J-S45042-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 STEPHEN R. SPRULL                        :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 1424 EDA 2022

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 21, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0002139-2010

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                           FILED MARCH 02, 2023

      Stephen R. Sprull (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order dismissing

as untimely his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.

      On October 29, 2009, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with

murder and related offenses involving the killing of Clinton Zimmerman, Jr.

The record reflects that on July 15, 2011, Appellant appeared for a

competency hearing. The PCRA court explained, inter alia, that

      [Appellant had been] given a mini mental examination by a
      psychologist in the courthouse who determined his I.Q. score to
      be 64. A full-scale I.Q. test was ordered by the court, however,
      [Appellant] refused to participate. Furthermore, two doctors
      found the [Appellant] to be competent.

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/18/22, at 4; see also N.T., 7/15/11, at 2-4. Appellant

likewise testified he was competent to stand trial. Id. at 16, 25, 30, 40-41.
J-S45042-22

        The case proceeded to trial, and on August 25, 2011, a jury convicted

Appellant of first-degree murder and related offenses.                    The trial court

sentenced Appellant to mandatory life imprisonment. On May 29, 2013, this

Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.              Commonwealth v. Sprull, 81

A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not

petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

        On February 21, 2021, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition.

The PCRA court appointed counsel. On December 27, 2021, counsel filed a

motion to withdraw and Turner/Finley no-merit letter.1 On March 18, 2022,

the PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss the petition without an

evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.              On April 21, 2022, the

court dismissed the petition as untimely. Appellant filed this appeal.2

        Appellant states his issue as follows:

        Whether [the] PCRA court[’s] determination/ruling was free from
        legal error, where Appellant was able to show and prove that his
        PCRA petition was timely in compliance with 42 [Pa.C.S.A. §]
        9545(b)(1)(ii)?

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unnumbered).

        It is well-settled that we review an order denying PCRA relief “in the

light   most    favorable    to   the    prevailing    party   at   the    PCRA   level.”

____________________________________________

1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

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

                                           -2-
J-S45042-22

Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865, 872 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)).

This Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports

the conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.

Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2012).               We

grant great deference to the PCRA court’s findings and will not disturb them

unless they have no support in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Rigg,

84 A.3d 1080, 1084 (Pa. Super. 2014).

      Further, Pennsylvania law makes clear that no court has jurisdiction to

consider an untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d

1076, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2010). A petitioner must file a PCRA petition within

one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final,

unless one of the three statutory exceptions (government interference,

unknown facts, or a newly recognized constitutional right) applies. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A petitioner must file a petition invoking an exception

“within one year of the date the claim could have been presented.”           42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). If a petition is untimely and the petitioner has not

pled and proven an exception, “neither this Court nor the trial 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) (quoting Commonwealth

v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006)).

                                     -3-
J-S45042-22

     “A judgment is deemed 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.’” Monaco, 996 A.2d at 1079 (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3)).

Here, Appellant’s petition is facially untimely; his judgment of sentence

became final on June 27, 2014, and he filed the underlying petition nearly

seven years late, on February 21, 2021.       See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice,

3/18/22, at 2 (unnumbered).

     Although Appellant asserts his petition falls within the exception for

unknown facts and “after discovered evidence,” the record does not support

this claim. The PCRA court explained:

     [Appellant] does not meet the new fact exception. Initially, the
     [Appellant’s] preliminary I.Q. of 64 is not a new fact. A pre-trial
     competency hearing was held on [July 15], 2011, where it was
     mentioned numerous times in the presence of [Appellant] and
     directly to [Appellant] that a mini I.Q. test [performed] by the
     court[-appointed] psychologist on the initial date of trial revealed
     an I.Q. of 64. It is worth noting that the court ordered a full I.Q.
     test [and Appellant] refused to participate. At the competency
     hearing, two doctors testified that [Appellant] was competent to
     stand trial and the court agreed. Nevertheless, [Appellant] knew
     this information as of 2011 and failed to file a PCRA until 2021.

           Even if one were to credit [Appellant’s] claim that he was
     unaware of his I.Q. score until [a later] hearing on January 13,
     2012, his claim still fails to meet the new fact exception since his
     judgment of sentence became final on [June] 27, 2014, and his
     PCRA was filed in 2021. Lastly[, Appellant] makes no claim that
     he was incompetent from 2014 to 2021, thereby preventing him
     from raising his claim in a timely fashion.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, 3/18/22, at 2-3 (unnumbered).

                                    -4-
J-S45042-22

      Incompetence may qualify as an exception to the PCRA time bar.

Commonwealth v. Cruz, 852 A.2d 287, 293 (Pa. 2004). However, it does

so only under limited circumstances, none of which are present in this case.

See Monaco, 996 A.2d at 1080-81.        Furthermore, in Commonwealth v.

Shaw, 217 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2019), this Court held that where a

defendant’s mental health problems were considered at trial and sentencing,

they did not qualify as a “new fact” and could not defeat the PCRA’s time bar.

See id. at 272.

      Accordingly, Appellant failed to plead and prove an exception to the

PCRA time-bar. As his PCRA petition is untimely, we, like the PCRA court, lack

jurisdiction and “the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/2/2023

                                    -5-