Court Opinion

ID: 9962588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:13:50.034333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:09.027989
License: Public Domain

J-A07035-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    CHRISTOPHER A. NAKOSKI                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1641 MDA 2022

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 10, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-28-CR-0000310-2019

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                 FILED: APRIL 23, 2024

       Christopher A. Nakoski appeals1 from the November 10, 2022 order

dismissing his amended petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief

Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.

       The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history

of this case as follows:

              [Appellant] was convicted of one count of [indecent
              assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1)] after a jury trial
              on January 9, 2020. [Appellant] was acquitted of a
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant’s notice of appeal purports to appeal from “the Judgment of
Sentence entered in this matter on the 10th day of November 2022.”
However, the appeal properly lies from the November 10, 2022 order denying
PCRA relief, not from the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v.
Gaines, 127 A.3d 15, 18–19 (Pa.Super. 2015) (noting that in a PCRA
proceeding, the final, appealable order is the grant or denial of relief).
J-A07035-24

          second count of [indecent assault] and one count of
          [corruption of minors]. These three counts involved
          [Appellant’s] then minor step-daughter, B.H. The jury
          was hung on two counts of [indecent assault] and one
          count of [corruption of minors].        These counts
          involved [Appellant’s] other minor step-daughter,
          R.H. A nolle prosequi was subsequently entered on
          July 8, 2020, as to these three counts.

          [On July 2, 2020, the trial court sentenced Appellant
          to 3 to 23 months’ imprisonment imposed. Appellant
          received credit for time-served from January 13 to
          February 1, 2019.]

          [Appellant] filed a timely motion for post-sentence
          relief on July 13, 2020, and an amended post-
          sentence motion pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(b) on
          September 24, 2020.        [The trial court] denied
          [Appellant’s] amended post-sentence motion by
          opinion and order of court on October 29, 2020.
          [Appellant’s] timely direct appeal to the Superior
          Court was denied on June 29, 2021.              [See
          Commonwealth v. Nakoski, 258 A.3d 557
          (Pa.Super. 2019).] [Appellant] did not file a petition
          for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme
          Court.

          [Appellant] filed a timely pro se PCRA petition on July
          29, 2021. After counsel was appointed, appointed
          counsel filed an amended petition on October 18,
          2021. [The PCRA court] held multiple evidentiary
          hearings on [Appellant’s] counsel’s request to
          supplement the PCRA petition with additional claims,
          and these requests were granted. On August 12,
          2022, counsel filed a final amended PCRA petition.
          [The PCRA court] denied [Appellant’s] final amended
          PCRA petition by opinion and order of court on
          November 10, 2022.          Pursuant to [Pa.R.Crim.P.
          907(4)], [Appellant] was provided notice of his right
          to appeal out decision denying his PCRA petition
          within [30] days.

                                   -2-
J-A07035-24

PCRA court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 12/19/22 at 1-2 (footnotes and extraneous

capitalization omitted). This timely appeal followed on November 30, 2022.2

       Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

              1.     Whether the PCRA court committed error when
                     it rejected Appellant’s claim (Point FIVE) that his
                     Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance
                     of counsel was violated when his trial attorney
                     did not object to the improper vouching that
                     occurred during the rebuttal phase of the case?

              2.     Whether the PCRA court committed error when
                     it rejected Appellant’s claim (Claim SEVEN) that
                     his Sixth Amendment right to effective
                     assistance of counsel was violated when his trial
                     attorney did not object and object for a mistrial
                     when the prosecutor wrote on the easel, in full
                     view of the jury: Charges: Miranda: Didn't
                     Sign Without K[n]owing What About[?]

              3.     Whether the PCRA court committed error when
                     it rejected Appellant’s claim (Claim SIX) that his
                     Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance
                     of counsel was violated by the cumulative effect
                     of the attorney errors alleged in his PCRA
                     Petition?

Appellant’s brief at 4-5 (extraneous capitalization and internal quotation

marks omitted; emphasis in original).

       Prior to addressing the substantive merits of Appellant’s issues,

however, we first determine whether he is eligible for PCRA relief.        To be

eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must plead and prove, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that he is “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment,

____________________________________________

2 Appellant and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -3-
J-A07035-24

probation or parole for the crime[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). “Case law

has strictly interpreted the requirement that the petitioner be currently

serving a sentence for the crime to be eligible for relief.” Commonwealth v.

Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108, 1109 (Pa.Super. 2016), appeal denied, 169 A.3d

524 (Pa. 2017).     “As our Supreme Court has explained, as soon as his

sentence is completed, a PCRA petitioner becomes ineligible for relief.”

Commonwealth v. Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 160 (Pa.Super. 2023) (citation

omitted). Furthermore,

           [t]he requirements set forth in [S]ection 9543
           establish only a petitioner’s eligibility for post-
           conviction relief, and do not implicate the PCRA court’s
           jurisdiction to act on a petition. Nevertheless, our
           Supreme Court has held that even if a petitioner is
           serving a sentence when a PCRA petition is filed,
           the petitioner cannot obtain relief under the
           PCRA once the sentence has expired.

Commonwealth v. Bieber, 283 A.3d 866, 873 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

     “[D]ue process does not require the legislature to continue to provide

collateral review when the offender is no longer serving a sentence.”

Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 765 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 572

U.S. 1039 (2014).

     Instantly, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 3 to 23 months’

imprisonment on July 2, 2020.      See notes of testimony, 7/2/20 at 13.

Appellant also received credit for time-served from January 13 to February 1,

2019. Id. Thus, Appellant’s sentence expired in June 2022. The transcript

                                    -4-
J-A07035-24

from a January 18, 2024 evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s motion for parole,

which was held long after the instant appeal was filed, further confirms that

Appellant has been discharged from Franklin County Jail and is no longer

subject to further supervision by the Franklin County Probation Department.

See notes of testimony, 1/18/24 at 54-55.

       Accordingly, as Appellant is no longer serving his sentence at the instant

docket, he is ineligible for PCRA relief and we discern no error on the part of

the PCRA court in dismissing his petition.3

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/23/2024

____________________________________________

3 In light of our disposition, Appellant’s pro se “Emergency Petition for Relief,”

which was filed on May 22, 2023 while he was represented by counsel, is
denied as moot.

                                           -5-