Court Opinion

ID: 9397134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 16:09:14.945658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.689009
License: Public Domain

J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JAHLEEL J. HARLEM                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1419 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 2, 2020
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-CR-0003828-2018

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JAHLEEL J. HARLEM                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1420 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 10, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0003828-2018

BEFORE:      NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                             FILED MAY 24, 2023

        Jahleel J. Harlem purports to appeal nunc pro tunc from the March 2,

2020 aggregate judgment of sentence of 3½ to 8 years’ imprisonment,

followed by 5 years’ probation, imposed after the PCRA court granted, in part,

his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, and restored his right to file a direct appeal.

Appellant has also filed a related appeal from the PCRA court’s May 10, 2022

order, to the extent it denied that portion of his PCRA petition which sought

permission to file additional post-sentence motions. Upon review, we hold

that the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to reinstate Appellant’s direct appeal

rights nunc pro tunc.      Accordingly, we vacate the court’s order granting

Appellant leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal from the judgment of sentence

and dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

      The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history

of this case as follows:

            On September 12, 2018, [Appellant] pled guilty to one
            felony count of robbery and one felony count of
            conspiracy. In accordance with the tendered and
            accepted negotiated plea, Appellant was immediately
            sentenced to a concurrent sentence of three (3) years
            of reporting probation with expressed conditions. No
            appeal was taken.

            From the outset, Appellant missed some probation
            appointments and a scheduled FIR evaluation. About
            a month after sentencing, Appellant violated
            probationary supervision upon his arrest in
            Montgomery County for a Berks County warrant that
            had been docketed under CP06-CR-0005498-2018
            with alleged criminal activity reported to have
            occurred on October 10, 2018 and involving charges
            of aggravated assault, robbery, conspiracy, theft,
            conspiracy to receive stolen property, strangulation,
            simple assault, recklessly endangering another
            person, and harassment. Appellant was sentenced in
            Berks County on April 4, 2019 for robbery and
            conspiracy to commit robbery. He was sentenced to
            nine (9) to twenty-three (23) months of incarceration
            followed by three (3) years of probation. He was

                                     -2-
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

          arrested in Berks County for another criminal matter
          under docket number CP-06-CR-0001982-2019 with
          a criminal activity date reported of March 8, 2019, and
          charged with aggravated assault and harassment. On
          November 12, 2019, Appellant was found guilty of
          harassment with no further penalty.

          On December 5, 2019, a Gagnon II hearing was held,
          and Appellant was found to be in direct and indirect
          violation of probation. Revocation ensued and a pre-
          sentence report and mental health evaluation was
          ordered. On February 6, 2020, following full
          evidentiary hearing, Appellant was sentenced to [an
          aggregate term of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment,
          followed by 4 years’ probation]. Credit for time served
          was ordered.

          On December 18, 2020, Appellant’s counsel filed a
          Motion for Reconsideration of VOP Sentence. On
          March 2, 2020, a full hearing was held concerning the
          motion and the prior sentence was vacated and a
          reduced sentence was imposed. Appellant was then
          sentenced to [an aggregate term of 3½ to 8 years’
          imprisonment, followed by 5 years’ probation]. Credit
          for time served was ordered. Again, no appeal was
          filed.

          On November 9, 2020, Appellant filed [an untimely]
          Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court (2286 EDA
          2020). On March 3, 2021, the Superior Court of
          Pennsylvania quashed the appeal for Appellant’s
          failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause
          issued on January 29, 2021.

          On August 3, 2021, a petition pursuant to the Post-
          Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)[, 42 Pa.C.S.A.
          §§ 9541-9546,] was filed by Appellant seeking to
          have his appellate rights reinstated. Appellant filed
          an Amended petition on August 10, 2021. Peter A.
          Levin, Esquire was appointed as counsel and a
          counseled Amended Petition was filed on February 14,
          2022. On May 10, 2022, this Court granted the
          petition to permit reinstatement of his direct appellate
          rights concerning his sentencing claims and denied

                                   -3-
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

            the petition seeking allowance of a second post-
            sentence motion.

PCRA court opinion, 8/12/22 at 2-4 (citations, extraneous capitalization, and

footnote omitted).

      Appellant filed two separate timely notices of appeal on May 18, 2022.

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

      On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue with respect to his March 2,

2020 judgment of sentence: “Whether Appellant’s sentence was unduly harsh

and excessive[?]” Appellant’s brief (1420 EDA 2022) at 7.

      Appellant also raises the following issue with respect to the PCRA court’s

May 10, 2022 order denying, in part, his PCRA petition: “Whether the [PCRA

court] erred in dismissing Appellant’s [PCRA] petition claiming ineffective

assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence?”

Appellant’s brief (1419 EDA 2022) at 7.

      Before we can address the merits of Appellant’s issues, however, we

must determine if the PCRA court had jurisdiction to restore Appellant’s rights

to a direct appeal such that these appeals are properly before us for review.

The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite because it

implicates the authority of this Court to grant any relief. Commonwealth v.

Davis, 86 A.3d 883, 887 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). This Court has

long recognized that “[w]e can raise sua sponte the timeliness of a PCRA

petition because it is an issue of the court’s jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v.

Balance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

                                     -4-
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

Additionally, “the PCRA time limitations … may not be altered or disregarded

in order to address the merits of the petition.” Commonwealth v. Laird,

201 A.3d 160, 161–162 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

        All PCRA petitions, including second and subsequent petitions, must be

filed within one year of when an Appellant’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 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).

        Here, the record reveals that Appellant’s judgment of sentence became

final on April 2, 2020, 30 days after the trial court resentenced him for robbery

and criminal conspiracy,1 and the time for filing a timely, direct appeal with

this Court expired.       See id.      Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal filed

November 9, 2020, which was ultimately quashed by this Court as untimely,

did not toll the date when his judgment of sentence became final under

Section 9543(b)(3). See per curiam order, 3/3/21. It is well settled that

“[an] untimely filing does not serve to circumvent the clear and unambiguous

language of Section 9545(b)(3) and alter the date when the judgment of

sentence became final.”         Ballance, 203 A.3d at 1031 (citation omitted).

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701 and 903, respectively.

                                           -5-
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

Accordingly, Appellant had until April 2, 2021 to file a timely PCRA petition.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

      Appellant’s instant PCRA petition was filed on August 3, 2021, more than

4 months late, and was thus untimely, unless he properly pled and proved

that one of the three statutory exceptions to the one-year jurisdictional time-

bar applies.

      The three statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar are as follows:

               (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)(i-iii).

      Instantly, we find that Appellant failed to prove any of the statutory

exceptions to the PCRA time-bar set forth in Section § 9545(b)(1). On the

contrary,   Appellant’s      argument     focuses   primarily   on   the    purported

ineffectiveness of his prior counsel for failing to file post-sentence motions and

a notice of appeal in response his March 2, 2020 judgment of sentence.

                                          -6-
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

However, out Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that “allegations of

ineffective assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdictional timeliness

requirements of the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120,

1127 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).

      Thus, we hold the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to restore Appellant’s

direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc via his untimely petition.               See

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157, 1161 (Pa. 2003) (holding that

Pennsylvania law makes clear that no court has jurisdiction to hear an

untimely PCRA petition).     Likewise, we have no jurisdiction to entertain

Appellant’s appeals. See id.

      For these reasons, we vacate the PCRA court’s May 10, 2022 order

granting Appellant leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal from the March 2,

2020 judgment of sentence and dismiss the current appeals for lack of

jurisdiction.   See Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa 2001)

(vacating court order granting leave to file appeal nunc pro tunc and

dismissing appeal filed, where remedy sought was available under PCRA and

subject to its requirements on timely filing).

      Appeals dismissed.

                                      -7-
J-S13034-23
J-S13035-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/24/2023

                          -8-