Court Opinion

ID: 9890249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:11:25.750618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:38.419810
License: Public Domain

J-S32014-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 EDWARD NELSON PETERS                     :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 205 MDA 2023

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 18, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-22-CR-0003893-2008

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:                     FILED: OCTOBER 12, 2023

      Appellant, Edward Nelson Peters, pro se appeals from the January 18,

2023 order, which notified Appellant that the court intended to dismiss his

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

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Because that order was not a final order, we quash this

appeal.

      The underlying facts and relevant procedural history are as follows. On

October 13, 2009, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to Involuntary

Sexual Intercourse with a Child and related offenses for the sexual abuse of

his minor stepdaughter over a period of six years beginning when she was six

years old. On the same day, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 3½

to 10 years’ imprisonment. On October 29, 2019, while released on probation

and parole, Appellant’s parole officer found him in bed with a 2-year-old child,

who was wearing a diaper only. Appellant appeared for a violation of probation
J-S32014-23

and parole hearing where Appellant conceded that his behavior violated the

terms of his release. The court revoked Appellant’s probation and parole and

imposed a new aggravate sentence of 4 to 10 years’ incarceration. Appellant

did not file a direct appeal.       Appellant subsequently filed two unsuccessful

PCRA petitions. See Commonwealth v. Peters, No. 778 MDA 2012 (Pa.

Super. filed Dec. 4, 2012) (unpublished memorandum); Commonwealth v.

Peters, No. 503 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. filed October 1, 2021) (unpublished

memorandum).

       On August 17, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition, his third.

On January 18, 2023, the trial court issued an order providing Appellant with

“notice” of its “intention to dismiss” the petition and advising Appellant that

“he may respond to the proposed dismissal, of record, within thirty (30)

days.”1     Order, 1/18/23 (some capitalization and emphasis omitted).

Appellant failed to respond.        The court never filed an order dismissing the

petition.

       On February 3, 2023, Appellant filed the instant appeal from the January

18, 2023 order.

       As an initial matter, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction to

entertain this appeal. Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final

order of court. See Pa.R.A.P. 341 (relating to final orders). Here, the January

18, 2023 order, which was equivalent to a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent
____________________________________________

1 The order is dated January 17, 2023, but does not appear on the docket until

January 18, 2023.

                                           -2-
J-S32014-23

to dismiss, informed Appellant he had 30 days to respond to the “proposed

dismissal.” An order indicating a “proposed dismissal” is not a final order from

which an appeal properly lies in this instance.           See Pa.R.A.P. 341;

Pa.R.Crim.P. 910 (“An order granting, denying, dismissing, or otherwise

finally disposing of a petition for [PCRA] relief shall constitute a final order

for purposes of appeal) (emphasis added)).        Appellant’s appeal is, thus,

premature.

      While Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) allows this Court to address a premature

appeal when the subsequent actions of the PCRA court fully ripen it, the PCRA

court here did not subsequently enter an order dismissing the PCRA petition.

Because there was no final order entered, this Court is without jurisdiction to

address Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.

      Appeal quashed.

Date: 10/12/2023

                                     -3-