Court Opinion

ID: 9898623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 20:11:02.397989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:17.381758
License: Public Domain

J-S38029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DANIEL A. BARNETT                     :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1805 EDA 2022
 APPEAL OF: ANTHONY HENRY              :

               Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-15-CR-0000731-1990

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DANIEL A. BARNETT                     :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1811 EDA 2022
 APPEAL OF: WILLIAM J. TURNER          :

               Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-15-CR-0000731-1990
J-S38029-23

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 DANIEL A. BARNETT                      :
                                        :
                                        :   No. 1813 EDA 2022
 APPEAL OF: RICHARD DANIELS             :

               Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-15-CR-0000731-1990

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 DANIEL A. BARNETT                      :
                                        :
                                        :   No. 1815 EDA 2022
 APPEAL OF: JAMES BOONE                 :

               Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-15-CR-0000731-1990

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 DANIEL A. BARNETT                      :
                                        :
                                        :   No. 1820 EDA 2022
 APPEAL OF: WALTER SMITH                :

               Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-15-CR-0000731-1990

                                  -2-
J-S38029-23

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
  DANIEL A. BARNETT                              :
                                                 :
                                                 :   No. 1822 EDA 2022
  APPEAL OF: TYRONE GREEN                        :

                Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-15-CR-0000731-1990

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                         FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2023

       In these consolidated pro se appeals, six incarcerated individuals appeal

from the PCRA1 court’s orders denying their petitions to join Daniel A.

Barnett’s request for post-conviction relief.2 None of these men is a party to

Barnett’s case, and none was charged with any crime in connection therewith.

Therefore, the PCRA court properly concluded that these individuals failed to

establish that they would be aggrieved by the denial of the relief sought in

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Post Conviction Relief Act.     42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

2 On July, 26, 2023, this Court entered an order dismissing a similar appeal

docketed at No. 1809 EDA 2022, after a suggestion of death was filed by the
Commonwealth.

                                           -3-
J-S38029-23

Barnett’s case.   Accordingly, as they have failed to establish standing, we

affirm.

      On September 17, 1990, the trial court sentenced Barnett to an

aggregate term of life in prison following his entry of a guilty plea to first-

degree murder and related charges. Thereafter, although Barnett did not file

a direct appeal, he filed four, unsuccessful petitions for post-conviction relief.

      On August 3, 2021, Barnett filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad

subjiciendum at a civil docket number with the prothonotary in the Court of

Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Shortly thereafter, each of the six above-

named individuals filed a motion to join Barnett’s case pursuant to the joinder

rules of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

      On November 1, 2021, the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas

entered an order transferring Barnett’s habeas corpus petition, as well as the

joinder pleadings, to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. All of these

filings were received by the Chester County Prothonotary on May 10, 2022.

Thereafter, that prothonotary filed a praecipe to transfer the documents to

the criminal division.   The Chester County Clerks of Courts then docketed

Barnett’s habeas corpus petition on May 23, 2022, and each of the joinder

petitions on June 1, 2022.

      The court treated Barnett’s 2022 filing as his fifth PCRA petition. On

June 1, 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to

dismiss Barnett’s fifth petition because it was patently untimely, and he did

                                      -4-
J-S38029-23

not establish a time-bar exception.3 That same day, the PCRA court denied

each of the above-named individuals’ motion to join Barnett’s post-conviction

proceedings. These appeals followed.

       As noted above, each of the above-named individuals filed their joinder

motions shortly after Barnett filed his habeas corpus petition at the civil docket

in Luzerne County.         They each relied upon “Rule 2227 et seq.” of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure to support their motion.             Because

Barnett’s requested relief was cognizable under the PCRA, it a was a matter,

governed by the procedural rules found in Chapter 9 of the Pennsylvania Rules

of Criminal Procedure.         Pa.R.Crim.P. 900-910.       Thus, the above-named

individuals cannot use the civil procedural rules as a basis to join Barnett’s

PCRA petition.

       The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure also prevent their joinder

in Barnett’s PCRA proceedings.            Rule 501 of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure provides that:             “Except where the right of appeal is

enlarged by statute, any party aggrieved by an appealable order, or a fiduciary

whose estate or trust is so aggrieved, may appeal therefrom.” For purposes

of this rule, “an aggrieved party must have a substantial interest at stake,”

____________________________________________

3 The PCRA court dismissed Barnett’s fifth petition on June 22, 2022. His
appeal from that decision is filed before this panel at No. 1852 EDA 2022.
There, we agreed that Barnett’s habeas corpus petition is governed by the
PCRA, and we affirmed the order denying him post-conviction relief.

                                           -5-
J-S38029-23

that is, “an interest in the outcome of the litigation which surpasses the

common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law.”         In re

McCune, 705 A.2d 861, 864 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citations omitted). Stated

differently, to be an “aggrieved party” entitled to file an appeal, the party’s

interest in the litigation must be adversely affected in a manner which is both

direct and immediate. Id.

       Significantly, whether a person is an aggrieved party, raises a question

of standing to bring an appeal. In Kessler v. Pub. Docs. Pen Reg. & Wire

Taps, 180 A.3d 406, 408 (Pa. Super. 2018), Melissa Kessler filed a pro se

appeal from the order denying her motion to intervene and review sealed

wiretap records in a completed criminal case involving Jeremy Baney.4 Ms.

Kessler contended that, as a member of the general public, she had both a

common law right and constitutional right to access these “judicial public

records.” Id. at 408.

       In reviewing the denial of Kessler’s motion to intervene, this Court first

addressed the standing issue:

       Standing is a core jurisprudential requirement that looks to the
       party bringing the legal challenge and asks whether that party has
       actually been aggrieved as a prerequisite before the court will
       consider the merits of the legal challenge itself. A party who is
____________________________________________

4 In 2003, Baney pled guilty to corrupt organization and drug charges arising

from his participation in a drug distribution ring. The trial court sentenced
him to a maximum term of thirty-nine years of imprisonment, we affirmed his
judgment of sentence, and he has unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief
via four PCRA petitions. Kessler, 180 A.3d at 407.

                                           -6-
J-S38029-23

      not adversely affected by the matter he seeks to challenge is not
      “aggrieved” and therefore does not have standing.

Kessler, 180 A.3d at 409-10.

      We then concluded that Kessler lacked standing because she did “not

refute the [PCRA] court’s finding that she failed to establish any direct or

immediate interest in the wiretap records.” Id. at 410. In addition, we noted

that Kessler’s mere “assertion of supporting Baney’s PCRA petition, without

any explanation of her relationship to Baney or stake in his post-conviction

proceedings, [failed] to establish a direct or immediate interest in the case.”

Id. Thus, in Kessler, we held that the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Kessler’s motion to intervene because she lacked standing. Id.

      The same holds true for the present appeals. Here, the six incarcerated

individuals have not refuted the PCRA court’s conclusion that they have no

connection to Barnett’s case or a direct or immediate interest in his PCRA

petition. As summarized by the PCRA court in each case:

            [These six men and over forty] other individuals filed
      motions to join [Barnett’s] criminal action. All of the motions were
      denied because a third party cannot be a party to another
      defendant’s criminal action. [Barnett’s] PCRA proceedings involve
      claims regarding his underlying criminal case of which [these six
      men were] not involved.         If [they] have similar claims or
      allegations, [they] must file them in [their] own criminal case, not
      [Barnett’s] case.

           Therefore, it was proper for this court to deny [their
      motions] for joinder and [the] appeals should be dismissed.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/22, at 2 (excess capitalization omitted). We agree.

As the above-named incarcerated individuals have not established standing in

                                     -7-
J-S38029-23

Barnett’s PCRA proceedings, we affirm the PCRA court’s denial of their joinder

motions.

      Orders affirmed.

Date: 11/14/2023

                                    -8-