Court Opinion

ID: 9928829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:11:05.40426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:47.659504
License: Public Domain

J-S47026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPRIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JAMIEL JOHNSON                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1062 EDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 15, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0801541-2004

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                           FILED JANUARY 24, 2024

       Jamiel Johnson appeals pro se from the order denying his untimely-filed

petition for post-conviction relief.       The lower court treated this as a serial

petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

46. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

       The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows:        In August

2003, Johnson stabbed another man in a crack house in Philadelphia, causing

his death.    On September 21, 2005, a jury convicted him of first-degree

murder and possession of an instrument of crime. On November 2, 2005, the

trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of life without parole.          On

March 7, 2007, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, and, on October

24, 2007, our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S47026-23

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 919 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal

denied, 934 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 2007).

       Johnson filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition on March 26, 2008, but later

withdrew it. On October 2, 2008, he filed another pro se petition, as well as

an amendment to that petition on March 18, 2009. On November 12, 2009,

the PCRA court appointed counsel.              After receiving several continuance

requests, the PCRA court removed PCRA counsel and appointed new counsel.

Ultimately, Johnson requested the right to proceed pro se. After conducting

a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998),

the PCRA court permitted Johnson to proceed pro se. Thereafter, Johnson

supplemented his pro se PCRA petition.

       On February 8, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss

Johnson’s PCRA petition.         On March 27, 2013, the PCRA court issued a

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Johnson’s petition without a

hearing. After being granted a continuance, Johnson filed a response. By

order entered May 20, 2013, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. Johnson

appealed. On September 16, 2014, this Court affirmed the denial of post-

conviction relief.     See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 107 A.3d 237 (Pa.

Super. 2014) (non-precedential decision).           Johnson did not seek further

review.1
____________________________________________

1 Instead, Johnson filed an unsuccessful petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the federal judicial system.        See Johnson v. Wetzel, 2019 WL 2339966
(E.D.Pa. 2019).

                                           -2-
J-S47026-23

       On September 22, 2020, Johnson filed a “Motion to Correct or Modify

Illegal sentence,” which he subsequently supplemented with multiple filings.

In these later documents, Johnson contended that his 2020 motion should be

treated as a petition for habeas corpus relief not subject to the time

restrictions of the PCRA. The PCRA court treated the 2020 motion as a second

PCRA petition. On January 23, 2023, the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice

of its intent to dismiss Johnson’s second petition as untimely filed and

establishing no time-bar exception. Johnson filed a response. By opinion and

order entered March 15, 2023, the PCRA court dismissed Johnson’s petition.2

This appeal followed.         The PCRA court did not require Pa.R.A.P. 1925

compliance.

       Johnson raises multiple substantive issues on appeal.3         Before we

consider their merits, however, we first note that the PCRA court properly

considered his latest filing for post-conviction relief as a serial PCRA petition.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (providing that the PCRA “shall be the sole means

of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and

statutory remedies for the same purpose . . . including habeas corpus”);
____________________________________________

2 On March 20, 2023, Johnson filed a motion in which he stated that he was

not properly served with the order denying his second PCRA petition. As a
result, the PCRA court reentered its order and opinion on April 13, 2023.

3 Johnson has filed an application for leave to supplement his brief with a
“subsidiary claim” that the trial court “lacked clear statutory authorization” to
sentence him to life imprisonment without parole for his first-degree murder
conviction. As explained supra, because we lack jurisdiction to consider this
claim, we deny Johnson’s application as moot.

                                           -3-
J-S47026-23

Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493, 499 (Pa. 2016) (explaining

that “claims that could be brought under the PCRA must be brought under

that Act. . . . A claim is cognizable under the PCRA if the . . . conviction

resulted from one of seven enumerated errors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §

9543(a)(2)”).

         Treating Johnson’s latest filing as a PCRA petition, we must next

determine whether the PCRA court correctly concluded that it was untimely

filed, and that Johnson failed to establish a time-bar exception. The timeliness

of   a    post-conviction   petition   is    jurisdictional.   Commonwealth   v.

Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). Generally, a petition for

relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed

within one year of the date the judgment becomes final unless the petition

alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for filing the

petition is met.

         The three narrow statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar are as

follows: “(1) interference by government officials in the presentation of the

claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized constitutional

right.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii)). In addition, exceptions to the PCRA’s

time bar must be pled in the petition and may not be raised for the first time

on appeal.      Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super.

2007); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that issues not raised before the

lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

                                            -4-
J-S47026-23

Moreover, a PCRA petitioner must file his petition “within one year of the date

the claim could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).

      Finally, if a PCRA petition is untimely and the petitioner has not pled and

proven an exception “neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction

over the petition.   Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal

authority   to   address   the   substantive   claims.”     Commonwealth        v.

Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

      Here, Johnson’s judgment of sentence became final on January 22,

2008, ninety days after our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance

of appeal and the time for filing a writ of certiorari with the United States

Supreme Court expired.      See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13.

Therefore, Johnson had until January 21, 2009, to file a timely petition. As

Johnson filed the petition at issue in 2020, it is patently untimely unless he

has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that one of the enumerated

exceptions applies. See Hernandez, supra.

      Johnson has failed to plead and prove any exception to the PCRA’s time

bar. Instead, he maintains that his request for habeas corpus relief exists

outside the parameters of the PCRA. The PCRA court summarily rejected this

claim:

            Instantly, [Johnson] makes no attempt to invoke an
      exception to the PCRA’s time bar, [] arguing instead that the PCRA
      does not apply to his claims. It does. [Johnson’s] erroneous
      denial of the PCRA’s applicability falls short of satisfying his burden
      of demonstrating that one of the three statutory exceptions to the
      PCRA’s timeliness requirement applies to his petition.

                                       -5-
J-S47026-23

PCRA Court Opinion, 3/15/23, at unnumbered 3 (citations omitted).

       Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s conclusion. Section

9543(a)(2)(vii) specifically affords relief under the PCRA when an illegality of

sentence claim is raised. “Although legality of sentence is always subject to

review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or

of the exceptions thereto. Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa.

1999). A PCRA petitioner must present an illegal sentencing claim in a timely

PCRA     petition   over   which   we   have   jurisdiction.   Id.   See    also

Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Otherwise, the petitioner is too late to obtain relief, and the sentence will

stand.

       In sum, Johnson’s 2020 petition is cognizable under the PCRA, but it is

untimely, and Johnson has failed to establish a time-bar exception. As such,

both the PCRA court and this Court lack jurisdiction to consider his substantive

claims. Derrickson, supra.

       Application for leave to supplement brief denied. Order affirmed.

Date: 1/24/2024

                                        -6-