Court Opinion

ID: 9411371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 17:07:29.781716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.432466
License: Public Domain

J-A13044-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
                                                :
  SHAWN J. HAMILTON                             :
                                                :
                       Appellant                :   No. 1325 MDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 30, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-40-CR-0000099-2013

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                 FILED: JULY 26, 2023

       Appellant Shawn J. Hamilton appeals from the order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Luzerne County dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post-

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 After careful review, we affirm.

       This Court summarized the procedural history of this case in a decision

denying Appellant’s first PCRA petition:

              On October 24, 2012, Appellant was charged at CP–40–CR–
       0003751–2012 (3751–2012) with three counts of criminal
       homicide, one count of criminal attempt homicide, and four counts
       of robbery for his involvement in an incident that occurred on July
       7, 2012. On December 10, 2012, the Commonwealth filed notice
       of its intent to seek the death penalty against Appellant, and this
       case was consolidated with that of Appellant's brother and co-
       defendant, Sawud Davis.

            Subsequently, on December 13, 2012, Appellant was
       charged at CP-40–CR–0000099–2013 (99–2013) with one count
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A13044-23

       of criminal homicide in connection with a shooting that occurred
       on July 6, 2012.
                                       ***
              On December 20, 2013, Appellant entered into a plea
       agreement with respect to both cases. Specifically, at 3751–2012,
       Appellant pled guilty to three counts of criminal homicide and one
       count of criminal attempt homicide and, at 99–2013, he pled guilty
       to one count of criminal homicide. In exchange, the
       Commonwealth agreed to withdraw the remaining charges at both
       criminal informations and indicated it would not seek the death
       penalty in either case. Appellant waived his right to a pre-sentence
       investigation and proceeded immediately to sentencing. [On
       December 20, 2013,] [t]he trial court imposed four consecutive
       life sentences at each criminal homicide count, and a consecutive
       term of twenty to forty years' imprisonment at the criminal
       attempt homicide charge.

Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 1072 MDA 2015, 2016 WL 2908260, at *1

(Pa.Super. May 17, 2016) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not file

a direct appeal.

       On April 24, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court

appointed counsel, who subsequently filed an amended petition. After an

evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition on May 18,

2015. After Appellant filed an appeal, his counsel filed a petition to withdraw

and a Turner-Finley no-merit letter.2 On May 17, 2016, this Court affirmed

the denial of Appellant’s first PCRA petition and permitted counsel to withdraw.

       From the beginning of 2020, Appellant filed numerous documents with

the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, including but not limited to PCRA

____________________________________________

2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

                                           -2-
J-A13044-23

petitions, requests for discovery, objections to the dismissals of his petitions,

and notices of appeal. All such filings were dismissed.

       On March 24, 2022, Appellant filed the PCRA petition, which the PCRA

court characterized as his eighth petition. In this filing, Appellant alleged that

his initial PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the 2015 denial of

his first petition. Appellant asked that his appellate rights be reinstated at

docket number 99-2013.

       The PCRA court indicates that it sent Appellant a notice of intent to

dismiss this petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on August 1, 2022. 3 The

PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition as untimely filed on August 30, 2022.4

       This timely appeal followed. On September 26, 2022, the PCRA court

filed an order which provided in relevant part:

       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that [Appellant] shall file
       of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal
       pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) and serve a copy of same upon the
       Luzerne County District Attorney and this Court pursuant to
       Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). The Statement shall concisely identify each
       ruling or error [Appellant] intends to challenge with sufficient
       detail to identify all pertinent issues for the Judge. Service upon
____________________________________________

3 The docket does not reflect that a Rule 907 notice was filed. However, as

Appellant has not challenged the lack of a Rule 907 notice, he has waived
appellate review of this issue. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468
(2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 514 n. 1 (Pa.Super.
2007) (providing that “[t]he failure to challenge the absence of a Rule 907
notice constitutes waiver”)).
4 While this PCRA petition was pending, on August 10, 2022, Appellant filed a

petition for leave to file a petition for allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc with
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, attempting to challenge this Court’s May 17,
2016 decision. The Supreme Court denied Appellant’s request on November
29, 2022.

                                           -3-
J-A13044-23

      this Court shall be made at the Luzerne County Courthouse, Third
      Floor, 200 North River Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18711.

      Any issue not properly included in this statement timely filed and
      served pursuant to 1925(b) shall be deemed waived.

      The Statement shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the
      date of this order. …

Order, 9/26/22, at 1 (emphasis in original).

      On October 7, 2022, Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement along with

a certificate of service indicating he served the District Attorney and the Clerk

of Courts. In an opinion dated November 3, 2022, the PCRA court indicated

that it had not been served with Appellant’s 1925(b) statement. Thus, the

PCRA court found that all of Appellant’s arguments were waived on appeal.

      We   recognize   that   an   appellant’s   “[n]on-compliance   with   Rule

1925(b)(1), including lack of service, shall result in automatic waiver of all

appellate issues.” Commonwealth v. Eldred, 207 A.3d 404, 407 (Pa.Super.

2019) (citing Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005)

(“[F]ailure to comply with the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)

will result in automatic waiver of the issues raised”)).

      Our courts have consistently held that “in order to preserve their
      claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever the
      trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained
      of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.” Commonwealth v.
      Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 403, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (2005) (quoting
      Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420, 719 A.2d 306, 309
      (1999)). In Forest Highlands Community Ass'n v. Hammer,
      879 A.2d 223, 229 (Pa.Super. 2005), this Court found that the
      appellant waived her issues on appeal by failing to serve the trial
      judge with her court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement. This Court
      held that the service requirements in Rule 1925(b) are not
      satisfied when the appellant simply mails his 1925(b) to the
      presiding judge of the court or merely files the statement with the

                                      -4-
J-A13044-23

      prothonotary, emphasizing that it is not the trial court's
      responsibility to manually search the prothonotary's files. Id.

Rahn v. Consol. Rail Corp., 254 A.3d 738, 745–46 (Pa.Super. 2021).

      In evaluating whether an appellant’s noncompliance with Rule 1925

warrants the waiver of his issues on appeal, it is necessary to review the trial

court’s order which “triggers an appellant’s obligation” to comply with Rule

1925. Id. (quoting Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle

Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted)).

      Rule 1925(b) sets forth specific requirements for a trial court’s order

requiring the filing of a concise statement:

      (b) Direction to file statement of errors complained of on
      appeal; instructions to the appellant and the trial court. If
      the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal
      (“judge”) desires clarification of the errors complained of on
      appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appellant to
      file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge a concise
      statement of the errors complained of on appeal (“Statement”).

      (1) Filing and service. The appellant shall file of record the
      Statement and concurrently shall serve the judge. Filing of record
      shall be as provided in Pa.R.A.P. 121(a) and, if mail is used, shall
      be complete on mailing if the appellant obtains a United States
      Postal Service Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing, or other similar
      United States Postal Service form from which the date of deposit
      can be verified in compliance with the requirements set forth in
      Pa.R.A.P. 1112(c). Service on the judge shall be at the location
      specified in the order, and shall be either in person, by mail, or by
      any other means specified in the order. Service on the parties shall
      be concurrent with filing and shall be by any means of service
      specified under Pa.R.A.P. 121(c).

      (2) Time for filing and service.

      (i) The judge shall allow the appellant at least 21 days from the
      date of the order's entry on the docket for the filing and service of
      the Statement. Upon application of the appellant and for good
      cause shown, the judge may enlarge the time period initially

                                         -5-
J-A13044-23

      specified or permit an amended or supplemental Statement to be
      filed.

                                      ***

      (3) Contents of order. The judge's order directing the filing and
      service of a Statement shall specify:

      (i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge's order
      within which the appellant must file and serve the Statement;

      (ii) that the Statement shall be filed of record;

      (iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to
      paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the appellant can serve the
      Statement in person and the address to which the appellant can
      mail the Statement. In addition, the judge may provide an email,
      facsimile, or other alternative means for the appellant to serve the
      Statement on the judge; and

      (iv) that any issue not properly included in the Statement timely
      filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed
      waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3) (emphasis added).

      In this case, the trial court’s order directs Appellant to “serve a copy of

same upon the Luzerne County District Attorney and this Court pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1).” Order, 9/26/22, at 1 (emphasis added).         The order

provides the address at which Appellant was to serve the trial judge, requires

Appellant to file and serve his concise statement of record within twenty-one

days of the entry of its order, and indicates that any issues not properly

included in the statement timely filed and served will be waived.

      In Rahn and Commonwealth v. Jones, 193 A.3d 957, 962 (Pa.Super.

2018), this Court held that an order specifying that an appellant was required

to “file and serve the statement of record with the court” was ambiguous as it

did not distinguish between the Court of Common Pleas and the judge

                                      -6-
J-A13044-23

presiding over the matter. In this case, Appellant mistakenly served the Clerk

of Courts at the address provided in the order for service of the trial judge.

      However, the order specified that Appellant was to serve the statement

on the trial court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1), which repeatedly states

that the statement shall be served on the judge. Thus, while it would have

been preferable for the order to indicate that the statement should be served

on the judge, the order’s language adequately informed Appellant of his

obligations under Rule 1925(b). Thus, we agree with the trial court that

Appellant failed to properly serve his Rule 1925(b) statement and his issues

should be considered waived.

      Even assuming that waiver did not apply, Appellant has failed to show

that he has filed a timely PCRA petition. We acknowledge that “the PCRA's

timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly

construed; courts may not address the merits of the issues raised in a petition

if it is not timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589, 591

(Pa.Super. 2016) (citations omitted).

      Generally, a PCRA petition “including a second or subsequent 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 or the expiration of the time for seeking the

review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).

                                     -7-
J-A13044-23

      However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition

if the petitioner explicitly pleads and proves one of the three exceptions

enumerated in Section 9545(b)(1), which include: (1) the petitioner's inability

to raise a claim as a result of governmental interference; (2) the discovery of

previously unknown facts or evidence that would have supported a claim; or

(3) a newly-recognized constitutional right that has been held to apply

retroactively by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court

of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).

      In this case, Appellant was sentenced on December 20, 2013. As

Appellant did not file a direct appeal, the judgment of sentence became final

on January 20, 2014, after the expiration of the time period to file an appeal

to this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Thus, Appellant had to file a PCRA petition

by January 20, 2015. As Appellant did not file this petition until March 24,

2022, the instant petition is facially untimely.

      In his petition, Appellant claims he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing

before the PCRA court to determine whether he is entitled to raise one of the

exceptions to the PCRA timeliness bar. Appellant asserts that his PCRA counsel

who appealed the May 18, 2015 dismissal of his first PCRA petition was

ineffective as he did not include all relevant docket numbers in his notice of

appeal.

       However, Appellant fails to develop any argument to show that any of

the three exceptions is applicable in this case to allow for review of the instant

                                      -8-
J-A13044-23

petition, which was filed more than eight years after his judgment of sentence

became final.

      Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s petition

as untimely filed.

      Order affirmed.

      Judge Lazarus joins the memorandum.

      Judge Bowes concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/26/2023

                                      -9-