Court Opinion

ID: 9954579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:11:32.171869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:54.147673
License: Public Domain

J-S04034-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANDREW JOSEPH ALLAM                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1112 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-52-CR-0000469-2009

BEFORE:       BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.:                                 FILED MARCH 26, 2024

       Andrew Joseph Allam (“Allam”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing

his “Motion to Nunc Pro Tunc Direct Appeal Rights, Lack of Quorum of the

Court When Superior Court Rendered Its Decision” (hereinafter “Motion to

Nunc Pro Tunc”), which challenged this Court’s direct appeal decision, issued

in 2011. We hold: (1) this motion should have been construed under the Post

Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”); (2) the motion was a legal nullity because it

was filed while Allam’s prior PCRA appeal was pending; and thus (3) the order

dismissing the motion was also a legal nullity.        Accordingly, we quash the

appeal.

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S04034-24

       A detailed recitation of the underlying facts — which are well known to

the parties and the PCRA court — is not necessary for our disposition.2

Instead, we recount that in November of 2010, Allam was found guilty

following a jury trial of multiple counts of rape of a child and related offenses.

The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of forty to eighty years’

imprisonment, found Allam to be a sexually violent offender, and ordered him

to register under the then-in effect Megan’s Law.3

       Allam filed a direct appeal, and on December 2, 2011, a two-judge panel

of this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence.       Allam subsequently filed

several PCRA petitions, all of which were denied.

       Pertinently, in April 2022, Allam filed a pro se “Motion to Dismiss

Criminal Action No. 469-2009, for Unsigned Probable Cause and Warrant of

Arrest.”    The PCRA court denied relief, and Allam appealed.         This Court

____________________________________________

2  This Court has previously addressed five appeals taken by Allam at this
criminal trial docket. See Commonwealth v. Allam, 296 A.3d 640 (Pa.
Super. 2023) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming dismissal of untimely,
fourth PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Allam, 258 A.3d 542 (Pa. Super.
2021) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming dismissal of untimely serial
PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Allam, 217 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(unpublished memorandum) (affirming dismissal of PCRA petition under
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000), because it was filed while
prior PCRA appeal was still pending); Commonwealth v. Allam, 100 A.3d
298 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming dismissal of
first PCRA petition), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 75 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth
v. Allam, 40 A.3d 182 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum)
(affirming judgment of sentence), appeal denied, 50 A.3d 124 (Pa. 2012).

3 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9791-9799.9 (expired).

                                           -2-
J-S04034-24

affirmed the PCRA court’s order on March 28, 2023, holding the motion should

have been treated as a PCRA petition and dismissed as untimely filed.

       Allam then had thirty days, or until April 27, 2023, to file a petition for

allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a). Allam

did not file such a petition but, on April 18, 2023, filed the underlying pro se

Motion to Nunc Pro Tunc.4 Therein, Allam challenged this Court’s 2011 direct

appeal decision, averring that because the panel consisted of fewer than three

judges, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 3102(b)5 and Superior Court Internal

Operating Procedure Rule 65.5,6 this Court had no power and no jurisdiction

to enter its decision.       Allam requested that his direct appeal rights be

reinstated nunc pro tunc.

       The PCRA court denied the Motion to Nunc Pro Tunc. The court’s opinion

noted, without further discussion, that the motion “was not treated as a” PCRA

petition, but also found the motion was an untimely PCRA petition, as it was

____________________________________________

4 The “filed” stamp on the face of the motion bears a filing date of April 17,

2023. However, it was not entered on the PCRA court docket until April 18,
2023, For ease of review, we refer to the date of the PCRA court docket entry.

5 See Pa.R.A.P. 3102(b) (stating that “[i]f less than three members of a panel

attend a session of the panel, another judge or judges shall be designated to
complete the panel if reasonably possible, and if it is not reasonably possible
to do so the presiding judge with the consent of the parties present may direct
that the matter be heard and determined by a panel of two judges”).

6 See Pa. IOP Super. Ct. 65.5.A (providing that “[e]xcept as otherwise
provided by these rules, all appeals, whether argued or submitted, shall be
assigned to and decided by panels consisting of three judges”).

                                           -3-
J-S04034-24

filed beyond the general one-year deadline and no timeliness exceptions were

raised.    See PCRA Court, 8/15/23, at 2-4.      Allam filed a pro se notice of

appeal.7

       Before addressing Allam’s issues on appeal, we must first determine

whether the Motion to Nunc Pro Tunc was cognizable under the PCRA, and if

so, whether it was timely filed. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (stating that the

PCRA “shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses

all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist

when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis”);

see also Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173, 177 (Pa. 2014) (noting “PCRA

time limits are jurisdictional in nature, implicating a court’s very power to

adjudicate a controversy”).

       In October 2023, this Court issued a per curiam rule on the PCRA court

and the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be quashed pursuant

to Lark. See 746 A.2d at 588 (holding “that when an appellant’s PCRA appeal

is pending before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the

resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in

which review is sought, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking such

review[ ]”) (emphasis added).

____________________________________________

7  While Allam filed a pro se Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal contemporaneously with his notice of appeal, the
following day the PCRA court issued an order directing him to file another one.

                                           -4-
J-S04034-24

       The PCRA court filed a response to the rule to show cause, which again

suggested, without discussion or legal authority, that Allam’s motion should

not be considered a PCRA petition. Nevertheless, the court reasoned in the

alternative that if Allam’s motion were properly construed as a PCRA petition,

it would have been improperly filed under Lark. Allam also filed a response

to the rule to show cause.8 He stated, similarly without explanation or legal

authority, “[i]t cannot be treated as a PCRA.”         See Allam’s Response,

12/21/23, at 3.

       We conclude that the Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc is subject to the PCRA,

and was prematurely filed while his prior appeal was pending or untimely filed

pursuant to Lark. To the extent Allam claimed this Court’s direct appeal panel

lacked jurisdiction to enter a decision, the PCRA explicitly allows such a

jurisdictional challenge.       See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(viii) (stating a

petitioner may raise a claim that his conviction or sentence resulted from “[a]

proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction”). Furthermore, a request for the

reinstatement of direct appeal rights is cognizable under the PCRA.         See

Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 945 (Pa. Super. 2003)

(reasoning that petitioner’s “initial PCRA petition served only to reinstate his

rights to a direct appeal nunc pro tunc; it did not grant him PCRA relief per

____________________________________________

8 Although Allam’s response, styled as a “Motion to Impose Sanctions Upon

Pike County Court for Failing to Comply with Superior Court’s Order,” was
untimely filed after the deadline set forth in the rule to show cause, this Court
accepted the filing.

                                           -5-
J-S04034-24

se”); see also Commonwealth v. Koehler, 229 A.3d 915, 929-30 (Pa.

2020) (reasoning that “[i]f an error of constitutional magnitude occurs during

the appellate process, the PCRA is the sole means of collaterally attacking the

final judgment on that basis”).

       For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Allam’s Motion for Nunc Pro

Tunc should have been treated as a PCRA petition, and thus was subject to

PCRA filing requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9542, 9543(a)(2)(viii); see

also Karanicolas, 836 A.2d at 945. Pursuant to Lark, because Allam was

still within the thirty-day period for filing a petition for allowance of appeal

following this Court’s March 28, 2023 decision affirming the denial of his prior

PCRA petition, his Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc was a nullity. See Lark, 746 A.2d

at 588; see also Commonwealth v. Belle, 289 A.3d 82 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(unpublished memorandum at 4) (stating PCRA filings advanced in violation

of Lark are legal nullities), appeal denied, 304 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2023);

Commonwealth v. Neisser, 227 A.3d 395 (Pa. Super. 2020) (unpublished

memorandum at 5-6) (same).9

       We further conclude that, because the Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc was a

legal nullity, the PCRA court lacked authority to rule on it. See Belle, 289

A.3d 82 (unpublished memorandum at 4); see also Neisser, 227 A.3d 395

(unpublished memorandum at 5-6). The PCRA court also lacked jurisdiction,

____________________________________________

9 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2) (providing that Superior Court non-precedential

decisions filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value).

                                           -6-
J-S04034-24

under Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a), to enter any ruling while this matter was on appeal

and the record remained in this Court’s possession. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a)

(stating generally, after an appeal is taken, the trial court may no longer

proceed further in the matter); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2572(a)(2) (stating that

the record shall be remanded to the lower court at the expiration of thirty days

after the entry of the judgment of the appellate court possessed of the record).

Accordingly, we quash the appeal.10 See Commonwealth v. Seay, 814 A.2d

1240, 1241 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that “[w]here a PCRA petition is

premature, we quash an appeal taken from a ruling on it”).

       Appeal quashed.

Date: 3/26/2024

____________________________________________

10 We note that previously, Allam similarly filed a PCRA petition while his prior

PCRA appeal was still pending, and on appeal, this Court: (1) applied Lark;
(2) concluded the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it; and (3) thus
affirmed the order dismissing the petition. See Allam, 217 A.3d 430
(unpublished memorandum at 6). Nevertheless, we opine in this appeal that
because the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Motion for Nunc Pro
Tunc, the order dismissing it was likewise a legal nullity, and thus we quash
the appeal.

                                           -7-