Court Opinion

ID: 9410504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 16:10:24.728913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.118753
License: Public Domain

J-S22041-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DAARON ANTHONY SHEARS                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1248 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 17, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
                  Criminal Division at CP-26-CR-0001660-2011

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

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                                FILED: July 21, 2023

        Daaron Anthony Shears (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order

dismissing his seventh petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction

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

        On July 13, 2012, a jury convicted Appellant of rape, statutory sexual

assault, and sexual assault.1 On November 2, 2012, the trial court sentenced

Appellant to a prison term of 10 – 20 years for the rape conviction, a

consecutive 3 months to 10 years in prison for the sexual assault conviction,

and no further penalty for the conviction of statutory sexual assault.       On

November 8, 2012, the trial court amended Appellant’s sentence to impose a

consecutive term of 3 months to 10 years in prison for the statutory sexual

____________________________________________

1   See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121, 3122.1, 3124.1.
J-S22041-23

assault conviction, and no further penalty for sexual assault. Appellant filed

a notice of appeal on December 11, 2012.             On May 23, 2013, this Court

quashed the appeal as untimely filed.2 Commonwealth v. Shears, No. 1954

WDA 2012 (Pa. Super. filed May 23, 2013) (order). Appellant did not petition

for allowance of appeal.

       Since that time, Appellant has filed multiple PCRA petitions without

success. See Commonwealth v. Shears, 292 A.3d 1086 (Pa. Super. filed

January 10, 2023) (unpublished memorandum at 2-3 (describing Appellant’s

multiple unsuccessful PCRA petitions)).          Relevant to this appeal, Appellant

filed his sixth PCRA petition on February 18, 2022.          On August 10, 2022,

following appropriate Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, the PCRA court dismissed

Appellant’s sixth petition without a hearing.         PCRA Court Order, 8/10/22.

Appellant timely appealed.

       On September 1, 2022, while the appeal of Appellant’s sixth

petition was pending, Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his seventh.

On September 9, 2022, the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of

intent to dismiss the seventh petition without a hearing. On October 17, 2022,

____________________________________________

2 Because Appellant failed to timely appeal, his judgment of sentence became
final on December 10, 2012, i.e., 30 days after entry of his judgment of
sentence. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (requiring an appeal be filed “within 30 days
after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”).

                                           -2-
J-S22041-23

the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely filed. Appellant filed

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

       Before addressing Appellant’s issues, we address the procedural posture

of this appeal. Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition during the pendency

of his appeal from the order denying his sixth petition. We have 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, 560 Pa. 487,
       746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000)3; see also Commonwealth v.
       Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 364 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en
       banc), appeal denied, 647 Pa. 570, 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 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, 613 Pa. 510, 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).
____________________________________________

3 Lark was overruled on other grounds not pertinent to this appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Small, 238 A.3d 1267, 1271 (Pa. 2020).

                                           -3-
J-S22041-23

Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 961 (Pa. Super. 2019) (footnote

added).

        There is no dispute that Appellant’s appeal from the denial of his sixth

PCRA petition was pending before this Court on September 1, 2022, when

Appellant filed his seventh PCRA petition.4 Consistent with Beatty, the PCRA

court was required to dismiss Appellant’s seventh PCRA petition because the

sixth petition was pending on appeal. Id. at 964. Notwithstanding, the PCRA

court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely and not subject to an

exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. PCRA Court Order, 10/17/22, at 3-4.

        We may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any basis supported by the

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

(citations omitted) (stating, “[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the

PCRA court’s legal conclusions” and “may affirm a PCRA court’s order on any

legal basis.”). Therefore, we affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of Appellant’s

seventh PCRA petition because Appellant’s appeal of his sixth petition was

pending before this Court.5 See Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961, 964.

        Order affirmed.

        Judge Olson joins the memorandum.

____________________________________________

4This Court filed its decision in that appeal on January 10, 2023. See
Commonwealth v. Shears, 292 A.3d 1086 (Pa. Super. 2023) (unpublished
memorandum).

5   Appellant filed an eighth PCRA petition on November 28, 2022.

                                           -4-
J-S22041-23

     Judge Stabile concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/21/2023

                                    -5-