Court Opinion

ID: 9900889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 17:08:26.170149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:21.355057
License: Public Domain

J-S32013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 ZACHAURY C. CAPRIOTTI                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 306 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-57-CR-0000073-2005

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 ZACHAURY C. CAPRIOTTI                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 307 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-57-CR-0000075-2005

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 ZACHAURY C. CAPRIOTTI                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 308 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-57-CR-0000076-2005

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S32013-23

                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 ZACHAURY C. CAPRIOTTI                  :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 309 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-57-CR-0000089-2005

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 ZACHAURY CLAYTON CAPRIOTTI             :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 310 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-57-CR-0000027-2006

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 ZACHAURY CLAYTON CAPRIOTTI             :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 311 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-57-CR-0000028-2006

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :

                                  -2-
J-S32013-23

  ZACHAURY CAPRIOTTI                             :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :     No. 312 MDA 2023

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-57-CR-0000032-2006

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
  ZACHAURY CLAYTON CAPRIOTTI                     :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :     No. 313 MDA 2023

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 16, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-57-CR-0000033-2006

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                             FILED: NOVEMBER 20, 2023

       Appellant Zachaury Clayton Capriotti1 appeals from the September 16,

2022 Order of the Sullivan County Court of Common Pleas denying as untimely

his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S

§§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On August 3,

2006, Appellant pled guilty to the following offenses: Burglary, Criminal

Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, Theft by Receiving Stolen Property,

Possession of an Incendiary Device, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Obscene or

____________________________________________

1 The record includes various spellings of Appellant’s first name.        We utilize
the spelling appearing on the trial court’s docket.

                                           -3-
J-S32013-23

Other Sexual Materials, and Criminal Mischief. The court sentenced Appellant

to an aggregate term of 68-240 months of incarceration. This Court affirmed

the Judgment of Sentence on August 2, 2007, and the Supreme Court denied

Appellant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal on March 12, 2008.2

       On May 23, 2008, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA Petition, and the

PCRA court appointed counsel. In his first PCRA petition, Appellant claimed

that “his guilty plea had been unlawfully induced as a result of ineffective

assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Capriotti, No. 2186 MDA 2008,

at 2 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 16, 2009) (citation omitted).         Specifically,

Appellant asserted that counsel should have sought to suppress his

confession, claiming that the investigating state troopers failed to inform him

of his Miranda3 rights and ignored his requests for an attorney. Following

evidentiary hearings, the PCRA court denied relief, finding Appellant’s prior

counsel and the State Troopers to be credible and Appellant not credible. On

appeal, this Court affirmed the denial of relief. Id. at 5.

       On August 19, 2022, Appellant filed the instant PCRA Petition pro se. In

it, he acknowledged that the petition was facially untimely but claimed that it

satisfied the newly discovered fact exception.          Without development,

Appellant maintained that the trial court did not have subject matter

jurisdiction to impose his sentence absent an indictment, citing to Article I,
____________________________________________

2Commonwealth v. Capriotti, Nos. 1919-26 MDA 2006 (Pa. Super. filed
Aug. 2, 2007), appeal denied, 945 A.2d 166 (Pa. 2008).

3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

                                           -4-
J-S32013-23

Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Pa.R.Crim.P. 141, 143, and

215. PCRA Petition, 9/19/22, at 3-4. He observed that challenges to subject

matter jurisdiction are non-waivable. Id. at 8. While explaining that he had

learned of these “facts” from an inmate at the law library, he did not indicate

when he received this knowledge nor why he could not have ascertained it

earlier. Instead, he claimed that he had been “over-charged” and reiterated

that his statements had been “fabricated.” Id. at 4.

       On September 1, 2022, the PCRA Court appointed Jennifer L.

McCambridge, Esq., to represent Appellant and scheduled a hearing for

October 24, 2022. On September 16, 2022, however, the PCRA Court denied

Appellant’s PCRA Petition as untimely without holding a hearing.4

       On October 16, 2022, Appellant’s counsel filed Notices of Appeal.5 Both

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

4 The record does not indicate     that the PCRA court provided Appellant with
notice of the court’s intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing as required
by Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant, however, has waived any claims of defective
notice as he “has not raised this issue on appeal[.]” Commonwealth v.
Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849, 852 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2016). “Moreover, failure to issue
[a] Rule 907 notice is not reversible error where the record is clear that the
petition is untimely[,]” as in this case. Id.

5 Appellant filed identical Notices of Appeal, listing all eight trial court docket

numbers. One copy of the Notice of Appeal at each docket in this Court
designates one specific trial court docket number with faint highlighting, which
arguably satisfies our Supreme Court’s requirement that separate notices of
appeal be filed corresponding to each docket. See Commonwealth v.
Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021); see also Commonwealth v.
Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (accepting
notices of appeal with multiple docket numbers, where the appellant
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S32013-23

       On June 19, 2023, Appellant’s counsel filed a Turner/Finley No-Merit

Brief and an Application to Withdraw as Counsel.6 Appellant has not filed a

response. On June 22, 2023, this Court consolidated Appellant’s cases sua

sponte.

       Before this Court, Appellant’s counsel raises the following question:

       Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in concluding
       that the Defendant’s PCRA Motion was not timely filed and,
       therefore, the Defendant’s request for relief was jurisdictionally
       barred?

Turner/Finley No-Merit Brief at 9.

                                               A.

       We must first determine whether Appellant’s counsel has satisfied the

requirements for withdrawal before conducting our independent review of the

merits. PCRA counsel seeking to withdraw under Turner/Finley in this Court

must submit a brief “[1] detailing the nature and extent of counsel’s diligent

review of the case, [2] listing the issues which the petitioner wants to have

reviewed, [3] explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and [4]

____________________________________________

designated one docket number on each Notice of Appeal by italicizing the
number). Even assuming that Appellant has not sufficiently complied, we
decline to remand for Appellant to file proper notices of appeal because it
would be inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources where it is clear that
Appellant failed to meet the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.               See
Commonwealth v. Young, 280 A.3d 1049, 1057 (Pa. Super. 2022)
(concluding on remand that parties will be permitted to correct deficient
notices of appeal “as a matter of course” absent, inter alia “other
circumstances that render clemency inappropriate”).

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

                                           -6-
J-S32013-23

requesting permission to withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d

717, 721 (Pa. Super. 2007). “Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a

copy of the “no-merit” letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel’s petition to

withdraw; and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the right to proceed pro

se or by new counsel.”     Id.   If we conclude that counsel satisfied these

requirements, this court will conduct an independent review of the merits, and

if we agree with counsel, we will grant counsel’s application to withdraw and

affirm the denial of PCRA relief. Id.

      After review, we conclude that Appellant’s counsel satisfied these

technical requirements as she reviewed the case, set forth Appellant’s

requested claims, determined that the claims did not satisfy any of the

exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar, and requested to withdraw

as counsel. Appellant’s counsel additionally provided Appellant with her Brief

and Application to Withdraw attached to a June 20, 2022 letter explaining

Appellant’s options to proceed with the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to

an independent analysis of Appellant’s claim seeking PCRA relief.

                                        B.

      In reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition, our standard of review

“requires us to determine whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are

supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal

error.” Commonwealth v. Small, 238 A.3d 1267, 1280 (Pa. 2020). While

we are bound by the PCRA court’s factual findings if supported by the record,

we review its legal conclusions de novo. Id. Our scope of review “is limited

                                        -7-
J-S32013-23

to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, which we view

in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before that court.” Id.

      The PCRA mandates that any petition including “a second or subsequent

petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final,

unless the petition alleges” and proves one of three exceptions to the

timeliness requirement. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment 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. § 9545(b)(3);

U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13 (petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within 90 days of

final judgment). Moreover, “the PCRA’s timing provisions [are] jurisdictional

in nature, and no court may entertain an untimely PCRA petition.” Small,

238 A.3d at 1280.

      As relevant to Appellant’s claim, a petitioner may satisfy an exception

to the PCRA’s time bar by pleading and proving that “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. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

For claims such as Appellant's arising after December 24, 2017, any petition

invoking a timeliness exception “shall be filed within one year of the date the

claim could have been presented.” Id. § 9545(b)(2). Notably, this Court has

observed that “a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not qualify

as one of the statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.”

Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350, 356 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc).

                                      -8-
J-S32013-23

                                       C.

      As set forth above, Appellant’s PCRA Petition is facially untimely as it

was filed in 2022, fourteen years after his sentence became final in 2008.

Appellant argues that he met the newly discovered fact exception based upon

his assertion that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose

his sentence absent an indictment. We reject this argument.

      Appellant’s Petition does not satisfy the newly discovered fact exception

because he does not explain why he was unable to ascertain the asserted facts

sooner through the exercise of due diligence nor does he state that he filed

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

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2).    As his counsel aptly observes, “[t]he

record is simply devoid of evidence that Appellant was just made aware of a

deficiency in the manner in which he was charged.” Turner/Finley Brief at

17. Moreover, while Petitioner observes that a challenge to subject matter

jurisdiction is non-waivable, he fails to recognize that such a claim does not

excuse a petitioner from satisfying the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar. Larkin,

235 A.3d at 356.      As Appellant’s PCRA Petition is untimely, we grant

Appellant’s counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm the PCRA court’s

Order.

      Application to Withdraw as Counsel granted. Order affirmed.

                                     -9-
J-S32013-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/20/2023

                           - 10 -