Court Opinion

ID: 9953679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 16:13:25.241975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:45.755596
License: Public Domain

J-S08028-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  LARRY MITCHELL LUCAS                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1374 MDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 21, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-22-CR-0000648-2022

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

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                      FILED: MARCH 22, 2024

       Larry Mitchell Lucas (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the order

dismissing his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.1 We affirm.

       On June 2, 2022, Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of simple

assault.2 That same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to one year of

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 On November 7, 2023, Appellant filed with this Court an application for relief

requesting we compel the Commonwealth to provide discovery materials.
Application for Relief, 11/7/23, at 1. For the reasons that follow, Appellant’s
request is denied as moot.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1).
J-S08028-24

probation to be served concurrently with any other sentence.3 Appellant did

not file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence, and he completed his

term of probation on June 2, 2023. Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 7/31/23,

at 3 (unpaginated).

       On June 2, 2023, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. Appellant

claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to identify alleged procedural

defects in his arrest warrant.         PCRA Petition, 6/2/23, at 5.      As this was

Appellant’s first PCRA petition, the PCRA court appointed counsel (PCRA

counsel) to represent him. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C). On July 28, 2023, PCRA

counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter pursuant

to   Commonwealth           v.   Turner,       544   A.2d   927   (Pa.   1988),   and

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc),

opining Appellant’s claims lacked merit. See Motion to Withdraw, 7/28/23, at

5-6 (unpaginated).

       On July 31, 2023, the PCRA court granted PCRA counsel’s motion to

withdraw and notified Appellant of its intent to dismiss his petition without a

hearing. Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 7/31/23, at 3 (unpaginated); see also

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).        The PCRA court observed Appellant was no longer

serving a sentence of probation for his conviction, which rendered him

ineligible for PCRA relief. Id.; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i) (stating

____________________________________________

3 At the time of Appellant’s guilty plea, Appellant was incarcerated in a state

correctional institution (SCI) for a parole violation. N.T., 6/2/22, at 3-4.

                                           -2-
J-S08028-24

eligibility for relief under the PCRA is contingent on petitioner “currently

serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime” at the

time relief is granted).

       On August 18, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se response to the PCRA

court’s notice of intent to dismiss. He alleged PCRA counsel’s no-merit letter

failed to 1) list the claim Appellant wished to pursue, and 2) explain why

Appellant’s claim lacked merit.         Response to Notice of Intent to Dismiss,

8/18/23, at 2. On August 21, 2023, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s

PCRA petition.       Order, 8/21/23, at 1 (unpaginated).        The PCRA court

acknowledged Appellant claimed PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness, but noted

“none of those claims address [the PCRA court’s] determination that

[Appellant] is ineligible for relief … because he is no longer serving the

sentenced imposed at this docket.” Id.

       Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.4 The PCRA court did not order

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. On October 9, 2023,

____________________________________________

4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was not docketed until September 29, 2023.
Although facially untimely, see Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), Appellant is currently
incarcerated and attached a postage slip from SCI Fayette demonstrating he
placed his notice of appeal in the prison mail system on September 5, 2023.
Notice of Appeal, 9/29/23, Attach. (SCI Fayette Postage Slip). Accordingly,
Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule.
See Commonwealth v. DiClaudio, 210 A.3d 1070, 1074 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(the “prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is
deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing”
(citation omitted)).

                                           -3-
J-S08028-24

the PCRA court filed a memorandum statement in lieu of opinion directing this

Court to the PCRA court’s July 31, 2023, notice of intent to dismiss.

      Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

      I.    Whether Appellant’s notice of appeal was properly served
      and filed as evident [from] the record and supported by the
      conclusion rendered by the PCRA court?

      II.    Whether Appellant’s first … [PCRA] petition [] was timely
      fil[ed] within the one year PCRA act statute requirements in place
      by the Pennsylvania legislature and precedent case law[]
      concerning Appellant’s meeting the one year time period from
      Appellant’s sentencing date of June 2, 2022?

      III. Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion once Appellant
      addressed the Commonwealth’s failure to official[ly] charge,
      arrest, fingerprint and photograph Appellant and committed an
      error of law, when the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s timely
      filed first initial review [PCRA petition], after invoking jurisdiction
      and after accepting a deficient “no-merit” letter concerning
      Appellant’s probationary period expiring, dismissed the PCRA
      [petition] when there is no legislative wording or controlling legal
      language or current case law to support the PCRA[’s] language
      that permits a timely PCRA petition filed on day one or the last
      day of the one year requirement to legally dismiss Appellant’s
      timely constitutionally filed PCRA petition?

Appellant’s Brief at 1 (capitalization modified).

      “Our standard of review for issues arising from the denial of PCRA relief

is well-settled.   We must determine whether the PCRA court’s ruling is

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Hand,

252 A.3d 1159, 1165 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).

      Before addressing the substantive merits of Appellant’s issues, we first

determine whether he is eligible for PCRA relief. To be eligible for PCRA relief,

a petitioner must plead and prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

                                       -4-
J-S08028-24

he or she is “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole

for the crime[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i).       “Case law has strictly

interpreted the requirement that the petitioner be currently serving a sentence

for the crime to be eligible for relief.” Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d

1108, 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016). “As our Supreme Court has explained, as soon

as his sentence is completed, a PCRA petitioner becomes ineligible for relief.”

Commonwealth v. Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 160 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing

Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997)).

      Further,

      [t]he “requirements set forth in [S]ection 9543 establish only a
      petitioner’s eligibility for post-conviction relief, and do not
      implicate the PCRA court’s jurisdiction to act on a petition.”
      Commonwealth v. Fields, 197 A.3d 1217, 1223 (Pa. Super.
      2018) (en banc). Nevertheless, “our Supreme Court has held that
      even if a petitioner is serving a sentence when a PCRA
      petition is filed, the petitioner cannot obtain relief under
      the PCRA once the sentence has expired.” Commonwealth
      v. Auchmuty, 799 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citing
      []Ahlborn, [] 699 A.2d 718 (1997)).

Commonwealth v. Bieber, 283 A.3d 866, 873 (Pa. Super. 2022) (emphasis

added). “[D]ue process does not require the legislature to continue to provide

collateral review when the offender is no longer serving a sentence.”

Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 765 (Pa. 2013).

      Instantly, the trial court sentenced Appellant to one year of probation,

effective June 2, 2022. Appellant’s sentence thus expired on June 2, 2023.

See Appellant’s Brief at 10 (conceding his term of probation has expired). The

PCRA court correctly determined Appellant is ineligible for relief under the

                                     -5-
J-S08028-24

PCRA, as he is no longer serving his sentence at the instant docket. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i); see also Bieber, 283 A.3d at 873. As Appellant

is ineligible for PCRA relief, we discern nor error or abuse of discretion by the

PCRA court in dismissing his petition.

      Order affirmed. Application for relief denied as moot.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/22/2024

                                      -6-