Court Opinion

ID: 9410787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 16:07:16.130912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.315815
License: Public Domain

J-A10028-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    ROBERT WASHINGTON                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 1329 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
               Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-200121-2004

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    ROBERT WASHINGTON                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 1330 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
               Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-200131-2004

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                  FILED JULY 24, 2023

        Appellant, Robert Washington, appeals pro se from the order entered in

the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as untimely

his serial petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A10028-23

affirm.

      The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

October 12, 2004, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea at two different

docket numbers, to third-degree murder, robbery, robbery of a motor vehicle,

aggravated assault, and conspiracy.       On September 16, 2005, the court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of thirteen (13) to twenty-six (26)

years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on August

1, 2006, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of

appeal on January 18, 2007.       See Commonwealth v. Washington, 909

A.2d 889 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 701, 918 A.2d 745 (2007).

      On October 30, 2007, Appellant timely filed his first pro se PCRA

petition. The court appointed counsel, who filed a “no-merit” letter on August

26, 2008. The court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on September 4, 2008.

On October 8, 2008, the court dismissed the petition. Although Appellant filed

a notice of appeal, this Court dismissed the appeal for failure to file a brief on

February 5, 2009. Thereafter, Appellant filed several more unsuccessful PCRA

petitions.

      Appellant filed the current pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus on

January 16, 2020.      In the petition, Appellant claimed to have recently

discovered “that he was arrested, charged, tried, and convicted … without

there ever being an arrest warrant.” (See Brief in Support of Petition, filed

1/16/20, at 9).   Appellant purportedly made this discovery by researching

                                      -2-
J-A10028-23

“clerk of courts records[,] clerk of quarter sessions [files,] and Right to Know

Law requests[.]” (Id.) Absent an arrest warrant, Appellant concluded that

the charges should have been dismissed “due to lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.”2   (Id. at 10).      Moreover, Appellant baldly asserted that the

Commonwealth committed misconduct because “the prosecutor … knew there

was no … affidavit of probable cause for issuance for an arrest warrant … and

deliberately proceeded with an illegal prosecution.” (Id. at 12).

       The court reviewed the petition and deemed Appellant’s issues to be

cognizable under the PCRA. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 4/22/22, at 2)

(citing Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa.Super. 2013)). On

February 18, 2022, the court issued Rule 907 notice. Appellant did not file a

response. The court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely on April 22,

2022. On May 9, 2022, Appellant timely filed separate pro se notices of appeal

at each underlying docket number, which this Court later consolidated sua

sponte. The court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant did not file one.

       Preliminarily, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional

requisite. Commonwealth v. Ziegler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa.Super. 2016). A

____________________________________________

2 “This Court has previously held 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), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 251 A.3d 350
(2020).

                                           -3-
J-A10028-23

PCRA petition shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying

judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment

of sentence 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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The statutory exceptions to the PCRA

time-bar allow for very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a

petition will be excused; a petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must

also file the petition within the required statutory window. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9545(b)(1)-(2).

       Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on or about

April 18, 2007, ninety (90) days after our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s

petition for allowance of appeal. See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13 (stating appellant must

file petition for writ of certiorari with United States Supreme Court within

ninety (90) days after entry of judgment by state court of last resort).

Appellant filed the current petition on January 16, 2020, which is patently

untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Significantly, Appellant failed to

plead or prove any exception to the PCRA timeliness requirements.3

Therefore, the petition remains time barred. Accordingly, we affirm.

____________________________________________

3 For the first time on appeal, Appellant attempts to invoke the “newly
discovered facts” timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).
Appellant baldly asserts that his issues “could not have been ascertained by
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-A10028-23

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/24/2023

____________________________________________

the exercise of due diligence given [that Appellant]: 1) was not fully aware of
his legal rights … 2) [Appellant] was represented by trial counsel … who was
ineffective … and 3) Appellant was … represented by PCRA counsel … who was
ineffective[.]” (Appellant’s Brief at 8). Appellant did not raise this argument
in his PCRA petition, and it is waived on this basis. See Larkin, supra at 356
(explaining, “Asserted exceptions to the time restrictions for a PCRA petition
must be included in the petition, and may not be raised for the first time on
appeal”). Even if Appellant had not waived this argument, the cursory
assertions in his brief fail to demonstrate the existence of new facts that could
not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See
Commonwealth v. Diggs, 220 A.3d 1112, 1117 (Pa.Super. 2019)
(reiterating due diligence demands that petitioner take reasonable steps to
protect his own interests and explain why he could not have learned of new
facts earlier through exercise of due diligence).

                                           -5-