Court Opinion

ID: 9960158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 16:11:20.987987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.288221
License: Public Domain

J-S10011-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 RICHARD A. MCANULTY                       :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :   No. 866 WDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 27, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
                    at No(s): CP-65-CR-0003108-2010

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                              FILED: APRIL 15, 2024

      Appellant, Richard A. McAnulty, appeals pro se from the June 27, 2023

order dismissing, as untimely, his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction

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

      On July 18, 2011, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder,

burglary, and three counts of violating the Uniform Firearms Act. On August

9, 2011, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility

of parole with a consecutive term of five to 10 years’ incarceration. This Court

affirmed   Appellant’s   judgment     of   sentence     on   May    23,   2013.

Commonwealth v. McAnulty, 81 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Table). Our

Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on

December 19, 2013. Commonwealth v. McAnulty, 83 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2013).

      Thereafter,
J-S10011-24

      [o]n March 21, 2014, [] Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition
      and counsel was appointed. On February 25, 2015, [counsel
      filed an amended PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf].

                                     ***

      On November 28, 2017, the [PCRA c]ourt filed an order denying
      PCRA relief.

      An appeal to th[is Court] from the denial of the PCRA petition
      was filed on December 20, 2017[.]         … The denial of []
      Appellant’s PCRA [p]etition was affirmed by order dated July 7,
      2018. [See Commonwealth v. McAnulty, 2018 WL 3598952
      *1 (Pa. Super. 2018)].

                                     ***

      On July 10, 2019, [] Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas
      corpus [relief] in the United States District Court for the
      Western District of Pennsylvania[.] On September 26, 2022,
      the District Court denied federal habeas corpus relief.

      On October 24, 2022, [] Appellant filed an appeal to the Third
      Circuit Court of Appeals from the denial of his habeas petition[.]
      Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability in that case
      was denied on May 31, 2023, with the Court finding that
      Appellant’s claims lacked merit or were procedurally defaulted
      with no grounds to excuse the default.

      On March 6, 2023, [] Appellant filed the PCRA petition which is
      subject to this appeal, raising the following issues:
      (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to conduct an
      investigation into [] Appellant’s post-traumatic stress disorder
      (“PTSD”), depression, anxiety, stress and pain to support a
      defense of diminished capacity; (2) ineffective assistance of
      trial counsel in failing to secure an expert to testify about []
      Appellant’s PTSD, depression, anxiety, stress and pain to
      support a defense of diminished capacity; (3) ineffective
      assistance of trial counsel in failing to conduct an investigation
      into the effects of withdrawal from medication for diabetes,
      depression, anxiety, and pain to support a defense of
      diminished capacity; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel
      in failing to present evidence of [] Appellant’s service in the
      United States Navy; and (5) ineffective assistance of trial
      counsel in failing to present evidence of [] Appellant’s mental
      and physical disabilities.

                                     -2-
J-S10011-24

        On May 17, 2023, th[e PCRA c]ourt filed an opinion, order and
        notice of intention to dismiss [] Appellant’s PCRA petition
        [pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907].

        On June 26, 2023, [] Appellant filed a rule to show cause and a
        motion to compel justice to be served. [The PCRA c]ourt
        construed these filings as [] Appellant’s response to the [court’s
        907 notice].

        On June 27, 2023, [the PCRA c]ourt issued an order dismissing
        [] Appellant’s PCRA petition[. On July 5, 2023, Appellant filed
        an amended PCRA petition. That same day, the trial court
        entered an order dismissing Appellant’s amended PCRA petition
        as moot in light of its June 27, 2023 order].

PCRA    Court    Opinion,    9/18/23,     at *2-*4   (unpaginated)   (unnecessary

capitalization and footnote omitted) (emphasis added). This timely appeal

followed.1

____________________________________________

1  On August 1, 2023, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
within 20 days. On August 17, 2023, Appellant filed another amended PCRA
petition, which the PCRA court apparently construed as a Rule 1925(b)
statement. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/18/23, at *4 (noting that Appellant
filed a 1925(b) statement on August 17, 2023). Appellant’s August 17, 2023
filing, however, does not comport with the requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4) (explaining that a concise statement must, inter alia, “set forth
only those errors that the appellant intends to assert” and “concisely identify
each error that the appellant intends to assert” on appeal). In general, the
failure to file a proper Rule 1925(b) statement would result in the waiver of
an appellant’s issues on appeal. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v.
Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224-225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en
banc) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d
775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (explaining that an untimely concise statement waives
all claims on appeal); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)
(“[F]rom this date forward . . . [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial
court orders them to file a [s]tatement of [errors] [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal
pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived.”). In this instance, however, and as will be discussed infra,
this Court does not have jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeal. As such, we
decline to dispose of Appellant’s appeal on this basis.

                                           -3-
J-S10011-24

      Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

       1. [Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing Appellant’s
          petition?]

See generally Appellant’s Brief.

      “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review is

whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free

of legal error.”   Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 723 (Pa.

2003). The issue of timeliness is dispositive in this appeal. “The timeliness

requirement for PCRA petitions ‘is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.’”

Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 365 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en

banc), appeal denied, 190 A.3d 1134 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted).            “The

question of whether a petition is timely raises a question of law, and where a

petition[] raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our

scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Pew, 189 A.3d 486, 488

(Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

      A PCRA petition is timely if it is “filed within one year of the date the

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

judgment [of sentence] 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 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Appellant's judgment of sentence

became final on March 19, 2014, 90 days after the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court denied allocatur and the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the

                                       -4-
J-S10011-24

United States Supreme Court elapsed. See U.S.Sup.Ct. Rule 13. As such,

Appellant had until February 19, 2015, or one-year after his judgment of

sentence became final, to file a timely PCRA petition. Appellant, however, did

not file the current PCRA petition until March 6, 2023, almost 10 years after

his judgment of sentence became final. Accordingly, Appellant's PCRA petition

is patently untimely.

      An untimely PCRA petition may be considered if one of the following

three exceptions applies:

       (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
       interference by government officials with the presentation of
       the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this
       Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

       (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown
       to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the
       exercise of due diligence; or

       (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
       recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the
       Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided
       in this section and has been held by that court to apply
       retroactively.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). If an exception applies, a PCRA petition may be

considered if it is filed “within one year of the date the claim could have been

presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).

      Herein, Appellant makes no attempt to invoke, much less plead and

prove, one of the enumerated exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar.          To the

contrary, Appellant raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Because Appellant's petition was untimely and because he failed to properly

                                     -5-
J-S10011-24

invoke an exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirements, neither the trial

court nor this Court has jurisdiction over the instant claims for collateral relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition.

      Order affirmed.

DATE: 04/15/2024

                                       -6-