Court Opinion

ID: 9376723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 17:07:42.551916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.645960
License: Public Domain

J-S45009-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    NOEL BROWN                                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1985 EDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 15, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-64-CR-0000258-2016

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                 FILED MARCH 3, 2023

       Appellant, Noel Brown, appeals pro se from the order entered on June

15, 2022, dismissing as untimely his fourth petition filed pursuant to the Post

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

       We briefly set forth the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows. Following a jury trial in 2016, Appellant was convicted of interference

with custody of children, dissemination of photos of child sex acts, corruption

of minors, furnishing liquor to minors, and trafficking in minors.1 On February

3, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 180 to

394 months of incarceration. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2904(a), 6312(c), 6301(a)(1)(ii), 3011(b), and 6310.1(a),
respectively. This Court provided a more detailed recitation of the facts
pertaining to Appellant’s underlying convictions in an unpublished
memorandum filed on October 23, 2017. See Commonwealth v. Brown,
2017 WL 4772761, at *1 (Pa. Super. 2017).
J-S45009-22

on October 23, 2017. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 2017 WL 4772761

(Pa.   Super.     2017)    (unpublished   memorandum),      reargument    denied

(November 22, 2017).         Thereafter, “Appellant untimely filed petitions for

allowance    of   appeal    to   our   Supreme   Court,   which   were   denied.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 2020 WL 1461011, at *1 (Pa. Super. 2020). On

October 25, 2018, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition. On July 1, 2019, the

PCRA court denied relief. Appellant appealed and, on March 24, 2020, this

Court dismissed the appeal because Appellant’s appellate brief was deficient.

See id.

       On January 10, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which was transferred

to the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. On April 20, 2022, the Wayne

County Court of Common Pleas entered an order concluding that Appellant’s

claims fell under the provisions of the PCRA. Accordingly, the court dismissed

Appellant’s filing as an untimely PCRA petition. Appellant did not file a notice

of appeal.   Instead, on May 17, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se motion for

reconsideration with the PCRA court, which the PCRA court denied by order

entered on May 20, 2022. Technically, the motion for reconsideration qualified

as a third petition under the PCRA, raising the same claims as Appellant’s

second petition.    See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa.

Super. 2013) (“[A]ll motions filed after a judgment of sentence is final are to

                                        -2-
J-S45009-22

be construed as PCRA petitions.”).             After the PCRA court denied relief,

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on May 31, 2022.2

       Most recently, and currently at issue, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA

petition with the PCRA court on June 9, 2022, while the appeal of his third

PCRA petition remained pending with this Court. The PCRA court dismissed

Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition as untimely by order entered on June 15,

2022. This appeal resulted.3

       Initially, in addressing the timeliness of this appeal, we note that the

PCRA court did not comply with the service requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P.

907(4), which provide that when the PCRA court dismisses a PCRA petition

without a hearing, it must advise the petitioner of the right to appeal and the

time for initiating the appeal “by certified mail, return receipt requested.”

____________________________________________

2  We addressed that appeal separately. See Commonwealth v. Brown,
1656 EDA 2022.

3  We note that Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 20, 2022,
outside of the 30-day appeal period as delineated by Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). By per
curiam order filed on October 12, 2022, this Court directed Appellant to show
cause why the appeal should not be quashed as: (1) untimely; and/or (2)
pursuant to our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Lark, 746
A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (holding that a petitioner is precluded from filing a
subsequent PCRA petition until review of the pending PCRA petition is resolved
“by the highest state court in which review is sought, or upon the expiration
of the time for seeking such review.”). Appellant filed a pro se response on
October 25, 2022. On November 29, 2022, this Court entered a per curiam
order stating that “[i]n accordance with this Court’s Order of October 12,
2022, and in consideration of Appellant’s response, the issues raised by this
Court’s Order will be referred to the panel assigned to decide the merits of
this appeal and the issues will be considered by that panel.” Order of Court,
11/29/2022. As such, this panel must first decide whether the appeal is
properly before this Court.

                                           -3-
J-S45009-22

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(4) (emphasis added).         Here, the docket reveals that the

PCRA court’s dismissal order was served via first-class mail. Therefore, there

is no confirmation in the record of the date upon which Appellant was served.

In such instances, we have found a breakdown in the judicial process and

declined to quash a potentially untimely appeal.        See Commonwealth v.

Khalil, 806 A.2d 415, 421 (Pa. Super. 2002) (concluding that “[w]e are

unable to ignore the failure of the trial court to inform [a]ppellant of his appeal

rights, and we are constrained to find that it was the breakdown of the

processes of the trial court that caused [a]ppellant's untimely appeal”); see

also Commonwealth v. Meehan, 628 A.2d 1151, 1155 (Pa. Super. 1993)

(stating “we cannot say with certainty that the PCRA court's failure to follow

the directives of Rule [907] had no effect on appellant's ability to perfect his

appeal since he was incarcerated”). As such, we will not quash this appeal

because Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal outside the 30-day time

limit.

         This Court, however, has previously explained:

         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, 746 A.2d 585,
         588 (Pa. 2000); see also Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181
         A.3d 359, 364 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc), appeal denied, 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

                                        -4-
J-S45009-22

     requires that the subsequent petition must give way to a pending
     appeal from the 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, 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).

     Here, there is no dispute that Appellant’s third PCRA petition was on

appeal with this Court at the time he filed his fourth PCRA petition. As our

decision in Beatty makes clear, however, the PCRA court was required under

Lark to dismiss Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition because the appeal on his

third petition remained pending. While the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s

current PCRA petition because Appellant did not file it within one-year after

his conviction became final, and he did not assert an exception to the PCRA’s

jurisdictional time-bar under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545, we can affirm the PCRA

court’s decision on any basis supported by the record. Commonwealth v.

Howard, 285 A.3d 652, 657 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations omitted) (“[W]e

apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions” and

this Court “may affirm a PCRA court's order on any legal basis.”). As such,

                                    -5-
J-S45009-22

the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s pro se PCRA petition filed on

June 9, 2022.

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/3/2023

                                   -6-