Court Opinion

ID: 9366703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:08:13.205378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.539104
License: Public Domain

J-S43011-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 FREDRICK GREEN                           :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 2230 EDA 2021

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 27, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0011490-2010

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 FREDRICK GREEN                           :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 2231 EDA 2021

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 27, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0011494-2010

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

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                          FILED JANUARY 27, 2023

      Appellant, Fredrick Green, appeals from the order entered on September

27, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing

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

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. The PCRA court found that Appellant failed to invoke its

jurisdiction because Appellant filed his petition in an untimely manner and
J-S43011-22

failed to plead and prove that the facts of his case fell within an exception to

the PCRA’s jurisdictional time-bar. We agree and, thus, affirm.

        On June 4, 2010, Appellant fired a handgun at a police officer on a street

in Philadelphia. On May 18, 2011, a jury convicted Appellant of multiple crimes

including Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer with a Firearm. On November

15, 2011, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 22½ to 45

years’ incarceration.

        This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence and, on November

27, 2013, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of

appeal. Commonwealth v. Green, 82 A.3d 1074 (Pa. Super. filed July 23,

2013) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 80 A.3d 775 (Pa. 2013).

Appellant did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and,

thus, his judgment of sentence became final on February 26, 2014.1

        On March 8, 2019, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA Petition, his

first. The PCRA court appointed counsel and, on September 10, 2019, PCRA

counsel filed an amended petition. The amended petition alleged, inter alia,

that Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain video

surveillance footage from cameras in the area of the incident to show that he

did not shoot at the police officer. Appellant asserted that the cameras’

existence was a newly discovered fact sufficient to overcome the PCRA’s one-

year time-bar. In direct contradiction, however, Appellant also claimed to have

____________________________________________

1   See U.S. Sup.Ct.R. 13(1); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3).

                                           -2-
J-S43011-22

“requested [surveillance camera footage] prior to trial and none [was] turned

over to [Appellant] by the Commonwealth[.]”2

        On August 13, 2021, the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 Notice of its

intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant did not

respond to the notice. On September 28, 2021, the PCRA court dismissed the

petition. Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

Statement nunc pro tunc. The PCRA court authored a comprehensive Rule

1925(a) Opinion.

        Appellant raises a single issue for our review:

        Did the Appellant suffer ineffective assistance of counsel when his
        attorney failed to hire a private investigator prior to trial, which
        would have enabled that investigator to locate video cameras that
        were situated in the vicinity of this incident and would have shown
        that the Appellant never fired his handgun at any police officer,
        and also after undersigned counsel provided newly discovered
        evidence in the form of a recently hired investigator’s photographs
        and conclusions to the Court which showed that numerous video
        cameras currently existed in the vicinity of the shooting and that
        had such an investigative finding been conducted prior to trial,
        exculpatory evidence would probably have been uncovered
        entitling the Appellant to relief.

Appellant’s Br. at 3.

        As an initial matter, we must determine whether the instant PCRA

petition was timely filed.3 It is well-established that “the PCRA’s timeliness

____________________________________________

2   Amended PCRA Petition, 9/10/19, at ¶ 11(a).

3 “Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is
limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by
the evidence of record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Wilson,
824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc).

                                           -3-
J-S43011-22

requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed;

courts may not address the merits of the issues raised in a petition if it is not

timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589, 591 (Pa. Super.

2016) (citation omitted).

      Generally, a PCRA petition “including a second or subsequent petition,

shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes

final.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence

became final on February 26, 2014. Thus, Appellant’s petition, filed on March

8, 2019, is patently untimely.

      Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA Petition if the

petitioner pleads and proves one of the three exceptions enumerated in 42

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). In the instant case, Appellant alleges the

applicability of the newly discovered fact exception, which requires proof that

“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[.]” Id.

at § 9545(b)(1)(ii). Due diligence requires that the petitioner “take reasonable

steps to protect his own interests.” Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d

1076, 1080 (Pa. Super. 2010). “A petitioner must explain why he could not

have obtained the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Id.

      Appellant alleges that the existence of cameras in the area where he

shot at police is a “new fact” sufficient to endow the PCRA court with

jurisdiction. Appellant’s Br. at 10-13. The PCRA court disagreed, focusing on

Appellant’s assertion that he requested the camera footage before his 2011

                                      -4-
J-S43011-22

trial. PCRA Ct. Op., 2/4/22, at 10. See also Amended PCRA Petition, 9/10/19,

at ¶ 1(a). It explained that Appellant could not have both known about and

requested camera footage pre-trial and have discovered the cameras post-

trial. PCRA Ct. Op. at 10.

       Appellant contradicts his use of the [newly-discovered fact
       exception] to the PCRA time-bar. . . . Appellant alleges that
       surveillance tapes that he knew about and requested prior to trial
       now constitute [newly]-discovered [facts]. This alleged
       surveillance footage cannot be both requested prior to trial and
       [an] after-discovered [fact]. As a result, any surveillance footage,
       if it existed, cannot qualify as [a newly] discovered [fact] to
       overcome the PCRA time-bar.

Id. The PCRA court, thus, found itself without jurisdiction to address

Appellant’s claim. Id.

       We agree. Appellant cannot have both requested the camera footage

before his trial in 2011 and discovered it within one year of filing his PCRA

Petition in March 2019.4 Moreover, even if Appellant did not know of the

location of the cameras until recently, he has failed to explain how, with the

exercise of due diligence, he could not have discovered them sooner.

       The PCRA court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider

the merits of Appellant’s untimely PCRA Petition because Appellant failed to

plead and prove an exception to the PCRA time-bar. Accordingly, we affirm

the PCRA court’s order dismissing the petition.

       Order affirmed.
____________________________________________

442 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) (“Any petition invoking an exception provided in
paragraph (1) shall be filed within one year of the date the claim could have
been presented.”).

                                           -5-
J-S43011-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/27/2023

                          -6-