Court Opinion

ID: 9387677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 17:07:43.293292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.958279
License: Public Domain

J-A05038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    SASALDINE J. JONES                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2445 EDA 2021

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 17, 2021
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                 Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0108471-2006

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                                FILED APRIL 18, 2023

        Sasaldine J. Jones (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing his

third Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)1 petition. We affirm.

        The PCRA court summarized the underlying facts as follows:

        On the afternoon of May 16, 2005, [Appellant] and a friend
        (Ronald Hall) were having lunch at Sonny’s Diner in Philadelphia.
        Sitting at another table were a man named Ed and Ed’s friend
        (Banger or AB). At some point, Ed got up and went to the
        bathroom. When he returned to his table, he began looking
        around and muttering that his $2000 ring was missing. Ed asked
        two diner employees, William Warthen and Alfonso Lanier, if they
        had seen the ring. They said they had not. Ed asked if they had
        seen anyone go into the bathroom. Mr. Warthen recalled that the
        man in the “brown dickie suit” [(Appellant)] had gone into the
        bathroom around that time. Ed then left the diner. Later that
        day, [Appellant] and Hall returned to the diner and confronted Mr.
        Warthen about supposedly having told Ed that [Appellant] stole
        the ring. Mr. Warthen assured [Appellant] that all he had told Ed
____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A05038-23

        was that [Appellant] had gone into the bathroom. [Appellant] was
        furious and reached for a silver gun in his waistband, but Hall
        convinced him not to do that in the diner. Later that day,
        however, [Appellant] again confronted Mr. Warthen at the rear
        door [of] the diner and this time [Appellant] pulled out his gun
        and [fatally] shot Mr. Warthen through the head.

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/8/22, at 1-2 (citation omitted).

        On June 15, 2007, following a five-day trial, the jury convicted Appellant

of first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and possession

of an instrument of crime.2          On July 27, 2007, the trial court sentenced

Appellant to life in prison for murder, followed by an aggregate six to twelve

years for the remaining convictions. Appellant did not file a post-sentence

motion or direct appeal.

        Appellant subsequently filed two unsuccessful PCRA petitions.          On

November 9, 2020, Appellant filed the instant, counseled PCRA petition, his

third. The Commonwealth responded that the petition was untimely, lacked

merit, and should be dismissed. Commonwealth Response, 4/20/21, at 1-2.

Appellant filed a reply. On November 17, 2021, the PCRA court dismissed

Appellant’s petition without a hearing.3          PCRA Court Order, 11/17/21.

____________________________________________

2   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 6106(a)(1), and 907.

3 The PCRA court failed to provide notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. See
Commonwealth v. Feighery, 661 A.2d 437, 439 (Pa. Super. 1995).
Nonetheless, Appellant has waived any challenge to the absence of Rule 907
notice by not raising the issue on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Taylor,
65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“The failure to challenge the absence of
a Rule 907 notice constitutes waiver.”).

                                           -2-
J-A05038-23

Appellant timely filed this appeal. Appellant and the PCRA court have complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Appellant presents the following issue:

      Did the PCRA Court err in finding, without benefit of a hearing,
      that the newly discovered evidence from Rasheem Hall
      [(Rasheem)] could have been obtained at or prior to trial through
      reasonable diligence, the evidence is cumulative or being used
      solely to impeach credibility, and/or it would not likely compel a
      different verdict?

Appellant’s Brief at 2.

      In reviewing the PCRA court’s denial of relief, we “examine whether the

PCRA court’s determinations are supported by the record and are free of legal

error.” Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 603 (Pa. 2013) (citation

omitted). The denial of an evidentiary hearing “is within the discretion of the

PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015).

      We first consider the timeliness of Appellant’s PCRA petition as it

implicates our jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 86 A.3d 883, 887

(Pa. Super. 2014) (recognizing the PCRA’s time limitations implicate the

Court’s jurisdiction).    All PCRA petitions, including second and subsequent

petitions, must be filed within one year of when the petitioner’s judgment of

sentence becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment

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

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

                                      -3-
J-A05038-23

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).      Because the PCRA’s timeliness requirements are

jurisdictional, a court may not address the merits of issues if the petition was

not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa. 2017).

      Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final 30 days after he was

sentenced, i.e., August 28, 2007.          See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(a)(3) (“If the

defendant does not file a timely post-sentence motion, the defendant’s notice

of appeal shall be filed within 30 days of imposition of sentence”). Because

August 27, 2007, fell on a Sunday, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became

final on Monday, August 28, 2007.          See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (providing

“Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday,

… such day shall be omitted from the computation.”).            Under the PCRA,

Appellant was required to file a petition on or before August 28, 2008. See

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant’s petition, filed on November 9, 2020,

is facially untimely. See id.

      Appellant attempts to invoke the newly discovered facts exception to

the PCRA’s timeliness requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii); see

also id. § 9545(b)(2) (requiring a petitioner to invoke a timeliness exception

within one year of when the claim could have been presented). “To qualify

for   an   exception   to   the   PCRA’s   time   limitations   under   subsection

9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the

claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by

the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618,

                                      -4-
J-A05038-23

629 (Pa. 2017). Importantly, it is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate he

could not have previously discovered the information with due diligence. 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d

171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Due diligence demands that the petitioner take

reasonable steps to protect his own interests.”). If the petitioner can establish

both prongs, the PCRA court may exercise jurisdiction. Commonwealth v.

Fears, 250 A.3d 1180, 1199 (Pa. 2021).

      Here, Appellant asserts as newly discovered facts, the August 7, 2020

statement Rasheem Hall (Rasheem) gave to Appellant’s private investigator.

Rasheem memorialized his statement in an affidavit which states:

      I went inside the diner with my friend Doughboy, [and] I saw the
      guy AB right away, he was sitting at the table. I gave a head nod
      to say what’s up, I order my sandwich, and then I was leaving …
      and looked over towards AB and he looked like he was looking for
      something and got up and walked towards the bathroom. I didn’t
      think anything of it at the time and walked out of the diner with
      my friend, Doughboy.

      We went over to Doughboy’s apartment in the projects which was
      close to the diner. We were at 11th and Cumberland. We went
      back to the diner about 15 minutes later to pick up our food.

      When I went back inside, the owner, Sunny, told me that the guy
      AB left his cell phone number and said that AB thinks that my
      brother Ronald Hall and his friend took his ring.

      Me and my friend leave and we went to 15th and York St. I called
      my brother on the phone and let him know that the guy AB wanted
      to talk to him about his ring being stolen. I then called AB myself
      to [ask] what was going on. I asked why he was looking for my
      brother and he said that his ring went missing and he thinks they
      got it. A[B] then asked me where I was from, and I told him 15th
      and York. He was then telling about all the people he knew in my

                                      -5-
J-A05038-23

     area. After our conversation about the people he knew from the
     area he hung up and about 5 to 10 minutes [later] he showed up.

     He showed up with the guy with the dreads. I then called my
     brother back again and told [him] that AB was there. I handed
     my phone to AB and he was talking to my brother Ronald. After
     about 5 or 10 minutes, my brother Ronald pulled up with Jay
     (Appellant). All of us were all ta[l]king about the ring.

     My brother told AB he didn’t have his ring and that’s when AB said
     that the guy who worked inside the diner named Wild Bill told him
     that they had his ring. My brother got real mad that someone was
     accusing him of stealing the ring so we all went back to the diner.
     The guy Wild Bill and another guy, who was the cook[,] came
     outside and we were all on the corner.

     There was an argument, and everyone was playing the blame
     game. At that point, I saw AB pull a gun out of the side of
     [his] waistband and then sho[o]t the guy in his head right
     behind his ear. Then AB and his friend, the one with the
     dreads[,] took off and ran south on Broad St. They never took off
     in their car. After that I went across the street on the other side
     of Broad St. and saw the police [had] arrived. I walked back over,
     and I was watching them try to do CPR on the guy and then the
     ambulance came, and they put him inside.

                                   * * *

     I came to find out who took the ring. Wild Bill, the guy who got
     killed[,] stole the ring. I saw the guy AB again after that and he
     told me.

Appellant’s Brief at 7-8 (italic emphasis added, bold emphasis in original)

(quoting Affidavit of Rasheem Hall). Rasheem claims “AB” shot the victim.

See id.

     Appellant asserts he “did not know prior to receiving the newly

discovered information from Rasheem Hall that Rasheem had been standing

on the corner and had witnessed the shooting.”        Appellant’s Brief at 9.

                                    -6-
J-A05038-23

Appellant states: “There was a large crowd of people — between 15 and 20 —

who had been standing outside.” Id. Appellant asserts he only discovered

Rasheem through the efforts of his present counsel and her private

investigator.   Id. at 10.   Appellant claims he did not know of Rasheem’s

presence because he was talking on a cell phone and “not focused on what

was going on around him.” Id. Appellant also states Ronald Hall, “did not

advise [] Appellant that his brother had been present and seen the shooting

either.” Id.

      Appellant further asserts he could not have discovered this evidence

sooner with due diligence.    Id. at 8.   Appellant claims his newly retained

counsel “had flyers put up in the neighborhood around the Diner where the

crime occurred seeking new information.” Id. at 10. In addition, new counsel

sent a private investigator to the diner to obtain statements from “several

individuals mentioned in the case materials,” including Ronald Hall. Id. After

locating Ronald Hall, the investigator determined that Rasheem had witnessed

the shooting. Id.

      In rejecting Appellant’s argument, the PCRA court explained:

      [Appellant] has failed to establish that he could not have obtained
      the information prior to the conclusion of trial by the exercise of
      due diligence. The petition and the affidavit are at odds with each
      other. [Appellant] claims to have not known Rasheem Hall was
      present at the murder. In his reply to the Commonwealth,
      [Appellant] says “just because you know someone from the
      neighborhood does not mean that you knew that person was a
      witness to a crime.” However, Rasheem Hall states he was with
      [Appellant] at the time of the murder and was standing next to
      his brother Ronald Hall. Rasheem Hall’s name appears in pre-

                                     -7-
J-A05038-23

     trial discovery and at trial. Indeed, Ronald Hall, who was
     involved in the shooting, is Rasheem Hall’s brother ….

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/8/22, at 6 (emphasis added).

     Our review confirms Appellant failed to demonstrate that he could not

have previously discovered the information with due diligence.      Appellant

concedes Rasheem was mentioned in the “case materials,” but fails to explain

why he did not take action to locate and obtain information from Rasheem

sooner. Consequently, Appellant’s claim of newly discovered facts fails. See

Brown, 111 A.3d at 176. Because Appellant failed to establish the newly

discovered facts exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement, the PCRA

court and this Court lack jurisdiction over Appellant’s third petition. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/18/2023

                                    -8-