Court Opinion

ID: 9895550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 18:09:48.513587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:57.196414
License: Public Domain

J-S37039-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 JAMES JONES,                           :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 584 EDA 2023

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 3, 2023
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
               Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0907751-1993

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                     FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2023

     James Jones (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his

fourth petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

     This Court previously explained:

     A jury convicted Appellant of murder of the first degree, robbery,
     and possessing an instrument of crime. On April 3, 1995, the
     court sentenced him to life imprisonment on the count of murder,
     and a consecutive term of four to eight years for robbery. This
     Court affirmed his judgment of sentence after a nunc pro tunc
     appeal, on August 22, 1997. Commonwealth v. Jones, 704
     A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 1997) (unpublished memorandum). Our
     Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on February 23, 1998.
     Commonwealth v. Jones, 716 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 1998). Appellant
     did not petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of
     certiorari.
J-S37039-23

Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 1438 EDA 2012, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb.

19, 2013) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming denial of Appellant’s second

PCRA petition).

        Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his fourth, on October

23, 2018. On December 19, 2022, the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907

notice of intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. The PCRA court

determined Appellant’s petition “was untimely filed and does not plead and

prove any exception to the PCRA’s time-bar.” PCRA Court Opinion, 2/3/23, at

1.   The PCRA court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s petition on

February 3, 2023. Appellant timely appealed.

        As the Commonwealth observes, Appellant filed the instant PCRA

petition while his petition for allowance of appeal of his third PCRA petition

was pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Commonwealth Brief

at 4.    The Commonwealth argues “the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to

address the petition and this Court lacks jurisdiction” to address the appeal.1

Id. We agree.

        The docket indicates that on August 4, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of

appeal, docketed at No. 2570 EDA 2017, from the denial of his third PCRA

petition.   This Court affirmed the dismissal of the third PCRA petition on

____________________________________________

1 In the alternative, the Commonwealth argues the PCRA court properly
dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition because Appellant “untimely filed his
PCRA petition and failed to plead and prove the applicability of an exception
to the PCRA time-bar.” Commonwealth Brief at 4.

                                           -2-
J-S37039-23

September 21, 2018. Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 2570 EDA 2017 (Pa.

Super. Sept. 21, 2018) (unpublished memorandum). On October 11, 2018,

Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court at No. 539 EAL 2018. Thus, the record confirms that Appellant

filed the instant PCRA petition while the prior petition was pending review.

      On June 12, 2023, this Court issued a rule to show cause directing

Appellant to explain why this appeal should not be quashed pursuant to

Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000) (overruled on other

grounds) (holding that when a PCRA appeal is pending, an appellant may not

file a subsequent PCRA petition until the appeal is resolved).

      Appellant filed a response admitting that he filed the instant PCRA

petition while his petition for allowance of appeal was pending. Response,

7/17/23, at 1-2 (unpaginated). By per curiam order, this Court referred the

issue to this merits panel and discharged the rule to show cause.

             Pennsylvania law makes clear the trial court has no
      jurisdiction to consider a subsequent PCRA petition while an
      appeal from the denial of the petitioner’s prior PCRA petition in
      the same case is still pending on appeal. Commonwealth v.
      Lark, 560 Pa. 487, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000); see also
      Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 364 (Pa.
      Super. 2018) (en banc), appeal denied, 647 Pa. 570, 190 A.3d
      1134 (Pa. 2018) (reaffirming that Lark precludes consideration of
      subsequent PCRA petition while appeal of prior PCRA petition is
      still pending). A petitioner must choose either to appeal from the
      order denying his prior PCRA petition or to file a new PCRA
      petition; the petitioner cannot do both, i.e., file an appeal and also
      file a PCRA petition, because “prevailing law requires that the
      subsequent petition must give way to a pending appeal from the

                                      -3-
J-S37039-23

       order denying a prior petition.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148
       A.3d 849, 852 (Pa. Super. 2016). In other words, a petitioner
       who files an appeal from an order denying his prior PCRA petition
       must withdraw the appeal before he can pursue a subsequent
       PCRA petition. Id. If the petitioner pursues the pending appeal,
       then the PCRA court is required under Lark to dismiss any
       subsequent PCRA petitions filed while that appeal is pending.
       Lark, supra.

              Pennsylvania law also states unequivocally that no court has
       jurisdiction to place serial petitions in repose pending the outcome
       of an appeal in the same case. Id.; see also Commonwealth
       v. Porter, 613 Pa. 510, 35 A.3d 4, 12 (Pa. 2012) (stating that
       holding serial petitions in abeyance pending appeal in same case
       perverts PCRA timeliness requirements and invites unwarranted
       delay in resolving cases, as well as strategic litigation abuses).

Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 961 (Pa. Super. 2019).

       It is undisputed that Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal was

pending with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court when Appellant filed the instant

PCRA petition.2 Nonetheless, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition as

untimely. We may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any legal basis supported

by the record. Commonwealth v. Howard, 285 A.3d 652, 657 (Pa. Super.

2022). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition

for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s third PCRA petition was pending

before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

2The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition on April 3, 2019.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 205 A.3d 1234 (Pa. 2019).

                                           -4-
J-S37039-23

Date: 11/7/2023

                  -5-