Court Opinion

ID: 9959373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 16:11:20.730074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:28.776807
License: Public Domain

J-A08013-24

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 CHRISTOPHER MYERS                       :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 168 EDA 2023

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 16, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0009678-2016

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                             FILED APRIL 11, 2024

     Christopher Myers appeals from the order that dismissed his petition

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). We affirm.

     Appellant was convicted and sentenced for robbery, theft, and simple

assault. The trial court denied his post-sentence motion, but no timely direct

appeal followed. After Appellant’s appeal rights were reinstated, we rejected

his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of his

suppression motion on the merits. See Commonwealth v. Myers, 245 A.3d

1058, (Pa.Super. 2020) (non-precedential decision) (“Myers I”). This Court

declined to address additional arguments due to waiver, including that the

verdict was against the weight of the evidence and other challenges to the

Commonwealth’s evidence. Id. at *4 n.4, *6 n.5. However, we determined

that his sentence was illegal and remanded for resentencing. Id. at *7.
J-A08013-24

      On April 8, 2021, the trial court resentenced Appellant to a term of five

to ten years of incarceration followed by two years of probation. On appeal

from his new judgment of sentence, counsel filed a petition to withdraw and

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). On March 25,

2022, this Court granted counsel’s petition and affirmed Appellant’s judgment

of sentence upon concluding that the appeal was wholly frivolous.          See

Commonwealth v. Myers, 276 A.3d 256, 2022 WL 881639 (Pa.Super. March

25, 2022) (non-precedential decision) (“Myers II”). Appellant did not seek

review from our Supreme Court.

      While Myers II was still pending before this Court, Appellant filed a pro

se PCRA petition asserting that trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective

in, inter alia, failing to preserve the issues this Court deemed waived in Myers

I. See PCRA Petition, 6/21/21, at 4. The PCRA court appointed Lawrence

O’Connor, Esquire, and continued the matter until this Court rendered its

decision. On May 9, 2022, which was after the Myers II decision became

final because Appellant’s time for seeking review in our Supreme Court

expired, counsel filed what he titled an amended PCRA petition restating the

claims raised in the premature pro se petition. See Amended PCRA Petition,

5/9/22, at ¶ 8. The Commonwealth responded with a motion to dismiss in

which it detailed arguments for the lack of merit of Appellant’s claims.

      On November 1, 2022, the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice

of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s amended petition without a hearing.

                                     -2-
J-A08013-24

Therein, the court detailed the reasons for finding no merit to Appellant’s

challenges to his counsel’s representation. See Notice of Intent, 11/1/22, at

¶¶ 13-17. Appellant filed no response to the notice, and the court dismissed

the amended petition by order of December 16, 2022. Appellant filed a timely

pro se notice of appeal, and present counsel was appointed to represent him

in this Court.1

       Appellant presents the following questions for our review: (1) “Did the

PCRA court have jurisdiction over a PCRA petition that was filed before

[Appellant’s] Sentence became final?” and (2) “Was PCRA counsel ineffective

for amending a prematurely-filed PCRA petition?”      Appellant’s brief at 5-6

(cleaned up).

       We begin with a review of the governing legal principles. “In general,

we review an order dismissing or denying a PCRA petition as to whether the

findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are free from legal

error.” Commonwealth v. Howard, 285 A.3d 652, 657 (Pa.Super. 2022)

(cleaned up). “It is an appellant’s burden to persuade us that the PCRA court

____________________________________________

1 It is unclear from the certified record why the PCRA court ordered the
appointment of counsel immediately prior to leaving Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas to accept a federal judicial commission. The court did not order
Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and none was filed. The
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas advised this Court by letter of February
16, 2023, that no opinion would be forthcoming since the PCRA judge was no
longer sitting.

                                           -3-
J-A08013-24

erred and that relief is due.” Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157,

161 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned up).

       Appellant’s two issues are interrelated. He first challenges the PCRA

court’s jurisdiction to dispose of his amended petition, claiming that

jurisdiction was lacking such that the whole proceedings were a nullity. See

Appellant’s brief at 16.          His second issue, a claim of PCRA counsel

ineffectiveness pursuant to Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa.

2021), is dependent upon the success of his first.2 He posits that, since the

premature PCRA proceedings were nullities, PCRA counsel was ineffective for

failing to file a timely petition instead of allowing what amounted to “illusory”

collateral review. Id. at 18.

       We begin with the jurisdictional issue. “It is well-settled that, relative

to PCRA petitions, questions of timeliness are jurisdictional in nature;

therefore, courts must address these questions as threshold issues.”

Commonwealth v. William Smith, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 WL 696237, at *6

(Pa. Feb. 21, 2024). PCRA petitions are to “be filed within one year of the

date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment

becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review

____________________________________________

2 In Bradley, our Supreme Court held that “a PCRA petitioner may, after a

PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se,
raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so,
even if on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa.
2021).

                                           -4-
J-A08013-24

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.

§ 9545(b)(3).

       This Court has held that a petitioner “may only file a PCRA petition after

he has waived or exhausted his direct appeal rights. If a petition is filed while

a direct appeal is pending, the PCRA court should dismiss it without prejudice

towards the petitioner’s right to file a petition once his direct appeal rights

have been exhausted.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 215 A.3d 1019, 1022–

23 (Pa.Super. 2019) (cleaned up). In Commonwealth v. Shaheed Smith,

244 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa.Super. 2020), we clarified that a premature petition is “a

legal nullity” which the PCRA court has “no jurisdiction to accept, hold, and

later dispose of” after the judgment becomes final. Id. at 17 (cleaned up).

       In the instant case, there is no question that Appellant’s pro se June 21,

2021 PCRA petition, filed while Myers II was pending in this Court, was

premature and therefore a nullity.3            Accordingly, Appellant maintains that

Williams, Shaheed Smith, and other decisions require us to find that

____________________________________________

3 In Commonwealth v. William Smith, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 WL 696237, at

*7 (Pa. Feb. 21, 2024), our Supreme Court ruled that a PCRA court may hold
a petition filed during the pendency of a facially-untimely direct appeal rather
than dismiss it as a nullity because the PCRA court’s jurisdiction in such
instances is unclear until the viability of the direct appeal is determined. In
so doing, the Court distinguished Shaheed Smith on the basis that the
timeliness of the direct appeal in that case was not disputed, deeming it
unnecessary to overrule our decision. Id. at *7 n.5. Since the timeliness of
Appellant’s Myers II appeal was not in dispute, William Smith does not
impact our analysis.

                                           -5-
J-A08013-24

counsel’s amended petition and the PCRA court’s order dismissing it for lack

of merit are legal nullities. See Appellant’s brief at 10-16.

      However, it is equally undisputed that the amended petition filed by

counsel, and the PCRA court’s dismissal order at issue in this appeal, were

filed after Appellant’s judgment had become final. The Commonwealth posits

that, while the pro se petition was a nullity, the counseled petition should be

treated as a timely, but mislabeled, PCRA petition over which the PCRA court

properly exercised jurisdiction. See Commonwealth’s brief at 5. In support,

the Commonwealth cites this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Shower,

301 A.3d 885, 2023 WL 3862768 (Pa.Super. 2023) (non-precedential

decision), for persuasive value.

      In Shower, this Court on Shower’s direct appeal vacated his sentence

and remanded for the trial court to enter a proper allocation of his credit for

time served. The day before the trial court resentenced Shower, he filed a

premature pro se PCRA petition. After more than thirty days passed following

the imposition of the new sentence and no appeal was filed, the court

appointed counsel who filed an amended petition that was ultimately denied

after a hearing.    On appeal from that denial, we sua sponte considered

whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction over the petition. We concluded that

jurisdiction did exist, explaining as follows:

             In the present case, the PCRA court did not dismiss
      [Shower]’s premature petition. Nevertheless, while the pro se
      petition is a nullity, we conclude that, under the unique
      circumstances of this case, the PCRA court properly addressed

                                      -6-
J-A08013-24

       [Shower]’s claims for PCRA relief. On October 25, 2021, following
       [his] premature petition and after [his thirty]-day appeal period
       had run, the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent [him] in
       the PCRA proceeding. [Shower]’s appointed counsel then filed a
       petition on his behalf on July 14, 2022, which was within one year
       of the date that his September 21, 2021 judgment of sentence
       became final. Thus, while improperly titled an amended petition
       as the original petition had no legal effect, the July 14, 2022
       petition constituted a timely first petition on [Shower]’s behalf.
       [See] Commonwealth v. Kubis, 808 A.2d 196, 198, 201 & n.4
       (Pa.Super. 2002) (premature petition was not cognizable under
       PCRA and therefore subsequently filed counseled petition
       constituted first petition). Accordingly, the PCRA court was not
       without jurisdiction when it ruled on [Shower]’s claims set forth in
       his counseled, timely PCRA petition. Cf. [Shaheed] Smith, 244
       A.3d at 15-17 (quashing appeal from dismissal of PCRA relief
       where pro se petition was filed while direct appeal was pending,
       appointed counsel filed petition to withdraw and no-merit letter
       after appeal became final, and petition was dismissed after
       Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice was provided).         We therefore may
       proceed to address the substantive issues raised in this appeal.

Shower, 2023 WL 3862768 at *4 (footnote and some citations omitted).

       The Commonwealth posits that the instant case is “factually equivalent,”

and urges this Court to deem the amended petition filed by counsel “a timely

filed first petition that the court had jurisdiction to dismiss.” Commonwealth’s

brief at 8. Appellant acknowledges our Shower decision but does not attempt

to distinguish it.4 See Appellant’s brief at 13-14.

____________________________________________

4 Instead, Appellant counters Shower with a 2015 unpublished memorandum

decision of this Court which he asserts is, although not binding, “persuasive
guidance” for reaching the opposite ruling. Appellant’s brief at 13. Appellant
is incorrect about the value of the 2015 memorandum.               While non-
precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their
persuasive value, “[a]n unpublished memorandum decision filed prior to
May 2, 2019, shall not be relied upon or cited by a Court or a party in
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-A08013-24

       We find Shower’s reasoning sound and apply it herein to materially

indistinguishable facts.      Appellant’s pro se petition was filed prematurely.

However, the “amended” petition was not filed by counsel until after his direct

appeal rights were fully exhausted. Thus, while the proper course would have

been for the PCRA court to dismiss Appellant’s pro se petition without

prejudice for him to file it after his direct appeal rights were exhausted, the

petition thereafter filed by counsel, although titled an “amended” petition, was

properly construed as “a timely first petition on [Appellant]’s behalf.”

Shower, 2023 WL 3862768 at *4. Hence, Appellant’s contention that the

proceedings were a nullity is incorrect.

____________________________________________

any other action or proceeding,” with exceptions not relevant here. 210
Pa.Code § 65.37(B). Accordingly, we do not consider Appellant’s improperly-
cited memorandum in resolving this appeal.

Appellant also cites Commonwealth v. Livering, 303 A.3d 745, 2023 WL
4417523 (Pa.Super. 2023) (non-precedential decision), a unanimous decision
by a panel comprising two of the three judges who had participated in the
unanimous Shower ruling a month earlier. We discern that Livering is
neither inconsistent with Shower nor factually similar to the instant case. Of
note, in Livering, the trial court proceeded to adjudicate a premature
petition, as amended by counsel, on the mistaken belief that the judgment of
sentence was final at the time that the initial petition was filed. On appeal
from the dismissal, we held that the failure of the trial court to identify the
final judgment and advise him of his rights to file a post-sentence motion
amounted to a breakdown of court processes that deprived the defendant of
his right to a direct appeal. Therefore, this Court vacated the order disposing
of Livering’s premature PCRA petition and reinstated his post-sentence and
direct appeal rights. See Livering, 2023 WL 4417523 at *3-4. No such
deprivation occurred here, as Appellant was advised of, and exercised, his
direct appeal rights before the premature petition was filed such that the
counseled PCRA petition filed after those rights were exhausted.

                                           -8-
J-A08013-24

       Consequently, Appellant’s Bradley claim premised upon the invalidity

of the PCRA proceedings also fails.            Attorney O’Connor’s failure to seek

dismissal of the premature pro se petition before filing his counseled petition

did not render the PCRA court’s consideration of his collateral matters illusory

or result in “entirely preclud[ing] appellate review of [Appellant’s] issues.”

Appellant’s brief at 18. Rather, it is the failure of Appellant to present any

argument in this appeal to demonstrate why or how the PCRA court erred or

abused its discretion in dismissing counsel’s petition for lack of merit that has

deprived him of this Court’s review of those issues.5

       As we have been presented with no valid argument that the PCRA court

erred or abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s counseled petition, we

affirm the order so doing.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

5  If Appellant believes that the PCRA court’s substantive review of his
counseled petition was erroneous, he is free to challenge current PCRA
counsel’s failure to present those arguments to this court pursuant to Bradley
by raising a claim, after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se, at his first
opportunity to do so, which in this instance would be an application for
reconsideration or reargument or in connection with the filing of a petition for
allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Clark, 254 A.3d 723, 724 (Pa. 2021) (per curiam) (remanding for litigation of
Bradley claim raised by the petitioner pro se while his petition for allowance
of appeal was pending). But see Commonwealth v. Stahl, 292 A.3d
1130,1136 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2023) (“Bradley does not permit the filing of a
subsequent untimely PCRA petition as a method of raising claims of
ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel.”).

                                           -9-
J-A08013-24

Date: 4/11/2024

                  - 10 -