Court Opinion

ID: 9911725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 18:09:26.406062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:00.108159
License: Public Domain

J-S35011-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

   COMMONWEALTH OF                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
   PENNSYLVANIA                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                 v.                            :
                                               :
                                               :
   ELIJAH MOORER JR.                           :
                                               :   No. 546 MDA 2023
                        Appellant

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 24, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000532-2013

   COMMONWEALTH OF                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
   PENNSYLVANIA                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                 v.                            :
                                               :
                                               :
   ELIJAH MOORER, JR.            APPELANT      :
                                               :   No. 783 MDA 2023

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 24, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0002037-2012

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                   FILED: DECEMBER 20, 2023

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35011-23

       Elijah Moorer, Jr. appeals pro se from the orders1 dismissing his serial

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9545. We affirm.

       On December 9, 2013, Moorer pleaded guilty to multiple counts of drug

delivery and violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. Ultimately, on March 31,

2015, the trial court sentenced Moorer to 36 to 72 years in prison. This Court

affirmed the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Moorer, 742

MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 10, 2016) (unpublished memorandum).

       Subsequently, Moorer filed a timely PCRA petition, which the PCRA court

denied. This Court affirmed the denial. See Commonwealth v. Moorer, 1646

MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 18, 2018) (unpublished memorandum).

Moorer then filed numerous PCRA petitions and supplemental filings, which

____________________________________________

1 We note that Moorer filed identical notices of appeal, listing both trial court

docket numbers. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa.
2018) (stating that “where a single order resolves issues arising on more than
one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case”), overruled
in part, Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 (Pa. 2021)
(reaffirming Walker, but holding Pa.R.A.P. 902 permits an appellate court
discretion to allow the correction of an error where appropriate); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 902 (amended May 18, 2023). Here, in each notice of appeal,
Moorer designates the docket number at issue by highlighting the proper case
number — the notice of appeal at 546 MDA 2023 highlights CP-14-CR-
0000532-2013 and the notice of appeal at 783 MDA 2023 highlights CP-14-
CR-0002037-2012. Therefore, we concluded Moorer has substantially
complied with the rule and decline to remand for the filing of corrected notices
of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa.
Super. 2020) (en banc) (noting that where separate notices of appeal are filed
at multiple dockets, the inclusion of multiple docket numbers on each notice
of appeal does not invalidate the notices of appeal).

                                           -2-
J-S35011-23

the PCRA court denied in various orders. This Court dismissed Moorer’s

appeals due to his failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See Commonwealth v. Moorer, 1704 MDA 2019, 1751 MDA 2019, 1752

MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 19, 2020) (unpublished memorandum).

      On February 27, 2023, Moorer filed the instant PCRA petition. The PCRA

court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, noting that the PCRA petition was

patently untimely and that Moorer had raised identical claims in prior PCRA

petitions. Moorer filed a response. Thereafter, the PCRA court dismissed the

petition without a hearing. This timely appeal followed.

      This Court’s standard of review regarding a PCRA court’s dismissal of a

PCRA petition is whether the PCRA court’s decision is supported by the

evidence of record and is free of legal error. See Commonwealth v. Garcia,

23 A.3d 1059, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2011).

      Under the PCRA, any PCRA petition “shall be filed within one year of the

date the judgment [of sentence] becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

A judgment of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct review,

including discretionary review in … the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at

the expiration of time for seeking the review.” Id. § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s

timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not

address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely

filed. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 283 A.3d 178, 184 (Pa. 2022).

                                     -3-
J-S35011-23

      Here, Moorer’s judgment became final on March 11, 2016, when the

time to seek review in our Supreme Court expired. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a)

(requiring that a petition for allowance of appeal be filed within 30 days after

the entry of the order sought to be reviewed). Therefore, Moorer’s petition,

filed on February 27, 2023, is facially untimely under the PCRA. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

      However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition

where the petitioner can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions:

      (i)       the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
                interference     by   government     officials  with   the
                presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution
                or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws
                of the United States;

      (ii)      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; or

      (iii)     the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
                recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or
                the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period
                provided in this section and has been held by that court
                to apply retroactively.

Id. “Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be

filed within one year of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id.

§ 9545(b)(2).

      Here, Moorer did not sufficiently plead any of the above timeliness

exceptions. In fact, Moorer baldly cited to the governmental interference

exception in both his PCRA petition and appellate brief but provided no further

                                      -4-
J-S35011-23

explanation or evidence supporting the exception. Significantly, Moorer has

not established that he raised any such claims within one year of when they

could have been presented or dispute that he has raised these claims in prior

PCRA petitions. To the extent Moorer raises a substantive ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, it does not implicate any of the exceptions to the

PCRA time-bar. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 186 (Pa.

2016) (observing there is no statutory exception to PCRA time-bar applicable

to ineffective assistance of counsel claims). As we are without jurisdiction to

address the merits of Moorer’s PCRA petition, the PCRA court properly

dismissed the petition as untimely.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/20/2023

                                      -5-