Court Opinion

ID: 9404877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 17:09:50.194756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.128488
License: Public Domain

J-S13011-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    WILLIAM RANKINS                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 3090 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 14, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-23-CR-0002037-2004

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

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                                FILED JUNE 26, 2023

        Appellant William Rankins appeals pro se from the order dismissing his

petition for habeas corpus as an untimely subsequent petition under the Post-

Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA). Appellant argues that his habeas petition is not

subject to the PCRA’s time limitations, and that he was entitled to relief on his

claims. We affirm.

        The underlying facts and procedural history of this matter are well

known to the parties. See Commonwealth v. Rankins, 39 EDA 2006, at 1-

12 (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 20, 2007) (Rankins I) (unpublished mem.). Briefly,

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and related

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S13011-23

offenses after a non-jury trial in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.2

On December 5, 2005, the trial court imposed a sentence of two consecutive

terms of life imprisonment followed by ten to twenty years’ imprisonment. On

direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and our

Supreme Court denied further review on August 29, 2007. See id., appeal

denied, 931 A.2d 657 (Pa. 2007). Appellant subsequently filed a first PCRA

petition, which was ultimately dismissed as untimely.

        On July 19, 2022, Appellant filed the instant pro se petition seeking

habeas corpus relief.        Therein, Appellant argued that his sentence had

deprived him of the rights to access the courts and be free from mistreatment

at the hands of prison officials under the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.       Pro Se Pet. for Habeas Corpus, 7/19/22, at 1-2.

Appellant claimed that the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas3 had
____________________________________________

2   18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a).

3  In his habeas petition, Appellant referred to a civil action he filed in
Huntingdon County, and alleged that his status as an inmate deprived him of
due process in that civil action. See Pro Se Pet. for Habeas Corpus, 7/19/22,
at 1-4. Appellant did not provide specific details about the Huntingdon County
civil action in his petition, see id., and the PCRA court was not able to obtain
additional information about it. See PCRA Ct. Op., 1/25/23, at 4 n.2.
However, in his appellate reply brief, Appellant identifies the Commonwealth
Court docket number for his appeal from the Huntingdon County civil action.
See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2.

Briefly, in 2020, Appellant filed a complaint alleging that several employees of
SCI-Smithfield had violated his federal constitutional rights. Rankins v.
McConaughey, 978 C.D. 2021, 2023 WL 2594004, at *1 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed
Mar. 22, 2023) (Rankins II) (unpublished mem.). Appellant also filed a
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S13011-23

disclosed his sentence’s impact on his constitutional rights for the first time in

October 2021. Id. Appellant also claimed that the sentencing statutes are

unconstitutionally vague because they do not provide conditions to ensure

that a sentence of imprisonment does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Id.

at 3. Appellant further argued that the sentencing statutes do not provide

adequate notice that a defendant’s constitutional right to due process in civil

proceedings would be diminished following sentencing. Id. at 3-4. Appellant

requested that he be released, or in the alternative, that he be resentenced.

Id. at 4.

       On August 9, 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of

intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing.       Appellant filed a

timely pro se response, arguing that his claims were not cognizable under the

PCRA. On September 14, 2022, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition

as untimely filed.

____________________________________________

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with the Huntingdon County trial
court. Id. On April 30, 2021, the Huntingdon County trial court entered an
order granting Appellant IFP status. Id. That same day, the Huntingdon
County trial court also dismissed Appellant’s complaint as frivolous pursuant
to Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1) because the complaint “lacks an arguable basis in law
or in fact, and thus does not set forth a valid cause of action.” Id. (citation
omitted). On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded for
further proceedings, concluding that because the Huntingdon County trial
court had granted Appellant IFP status, it could not dismiss Appellant’s
complaint as frivolous pursuant to Rule 240(j). Id. at *2.

                                           -3-
J-S13011-23

       Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal4 and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) statement. The PCRA court subsequently issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

opinion reiterating that Appellant’s PCRA petition was untimely.

       On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we reorder as

follows:

       1. Did the PCRA court improperly convert Appellant’s [petition for
          a] writ for habeas corpus relief into a PCRA petition?

       2. [Were] Appellant’s contentions raised in a timely fashion?

       3. Are the applicable sentencing statutes unconstitutionally
          vague?

       4. [Did] the PCRA court violate the nondelegation doctrine in
          permitting the civil court to exercise decision-making authority
          concerning what is to be expected within the purview of
          criminal sentencing questions?

       5. Does a disparity in treatment amongst similarly situated duly
          convicted persons result in a crucial, binding diminution of
          constitutional protection?

Appellant’s Brief at 1 (formatting altered).

       Because Appellant’s first two issues are interrelated, we address them

together.     Appellant argues that his claims do “not question the truth-

determining process, thus [his claims] could not be properly brought [] under

the PCRA[,]” and that a habeas petition is the proper vehicle for him to seek

relief. Id. at 2; see also Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2 (asserting that the PCRA

____________________________________________

4 Appellant captioned his filing as an “interlocutory request for mandamus
intervention.” Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 10/11/22, at 1. This Court
subsequently ordered the PCRA court to docket Appellant’s filing as a notice
of appeal, and the PCRA court complied. See Order, 101 EDM 2022, 11/1/22.

                                           -4-
J-S13011-23

does not provide relief for “newly disclosed sentence conditions”). Appellant

contends that during the litigation of his civil action, the Huntingdon County

trial court made determinations regarding the parameters of Appellant’s

sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 2-3. Therefore, Appellant contends that his

habeas petition was timely because the Huntingdon County civil action

“unveiled” previously unknown consequences of Appellant’s sentence which

he could not have discovered “even through the exercise of due diligence.”

Id. at 5-6.     Further, Appellant suggests that the Huntingdon County trial

court’s order constitutes a new sentence.          Id. at 6 (citing, inter alia,

Commonwealth v. Lugo, 2794 EDA 2017, 2019 WL 256503 (Pa. Super. filed

Jan. 18, 2019) (unpublished mem.)).5

       Our review of the denial of PCRA relief is limited to “whether the record

supports the PCRA court’s determination and whether the PCRA court’s

decision is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4

(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

       At the outset, we note that Appellant refers to his filing as a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. Our Supreme Court has held that the PCRA statute

subsumes the writ of habeas corpus where a remedy is available under the

PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223-24 (Pa. 1999); see

____________________________________________

5 Appellant alternatively argues that this appeal may be moot because the
Commonwealth Court reversed the Huntingdon County trial court’s order
dismissing his civil action. Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2 (citing Rankins II,
2023 WL 2594004). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the PCRA
court’s order.

                                           -5-
J-S13011-23

also Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 770 (Pa. 2013) (explaining

that when a petitioner’s claims are cognizable under the PCRA, the writ of

habeas corpus is not available); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (stating that a PCRA

petition “shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses

all other common law and statutory remedies . . . including habeas corpus and

coram nobis”). Further, our Supreme Court has “broadly interpreted the PCRA

eligibility requirements as including within its ambit claims . . . regardless of

the ‘truth-determining process’ language . . . from Section 9543(a)(2)(i).”

Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 986 (Pa. 2008) (citations

omitted).

      A     claim   that   a   sentencing   statute   was   void   because   it   was

unconstitutionally vague is a challenge to the legality of the sentence. See

Commonwealth v. Moore, 247 A.3d 990, 997-98 (Pa. 2021).                      Further,

“claims pertaining to the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Clause [] pertain to the legality of the sentence . . . .” Commonwealth v.

Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).                   A

challenge to the “legality of sentence is always subject to review within the

PCRA,” however a PCRA petitioner “must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time

limits or one of the exceptions thereto.”        Fahy, 737 A.2d at 223 (citation

omitted); see also Moore, 247 A.3d at 998; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vii).

      “[T]he timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. Super. 2015). A PCRA

petition, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one

                                        -6-
J-S13011-23

year of the date the judgment becomes final,” unless the petitioner pleads and

proves one of three statutory exceptions.        42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).      A

judgment of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes “at the conclusion of

direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the

United States and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time

for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3).

      Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a

judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of

the following three statutory exceptions:

      (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. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner asserting one of these exceptions

must file a petition within one year of the date the claim could have first been

presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2). It is the PCRA petitioner’s “burden

to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.”

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1094 (Pa. 2010) (citation

omitted and some formatting altered); see also Commonwealth v. Allison,

                                      -7-
J-S13011-23

235 A.3d 359, 364 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining that a petitioner must

present evidence in support of a claim that his PCRA petition is timely based

on newly discovered facts and “unsubstantiated bald assertions” will “fall[]

short of pleading and proving an exception to the PCRA’s timing requirements”

(citations and footnote omitted)). If a PCRA petition is untimely, and none of

the timeliness exceptions are met, our courts lack jurisdiction to address the

merits of a challenge to the legality of the sentence. See Commonwealth

v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995-96 (Pa. Super. 2014).

      Here, the PCRA court addressed the applicability of the PCRA to and the

timeliness of Appellant’s petition as follows:

      The Post-Conviction Relief Act addressed Appellant’s claims raised
      in his habeas petition and as such, the petition must be treated as
      a petition under the Act. A habeas petition is used to inquire into
      the “cause for detention” of any person and is only available to
      address constitutional and jurisdictional issues that cannot be
      address[ed] by the PCRA. While Appellant attempts to fashion his
      petition in terms of unconstitutionality of this court’s sentence, he
      is really alleging the court’s sentence was illegal in that he was
      not provided notice of all the potential consequences of his
      sentence of life in prison.

                                   *    *    *

      As a form of relief, Appellant is seeking either release or
      resentencing under a statute that would make “unanticipated,
      unforeseeable, and newly disclosed conditions of the sentence of
      imprisonment lawful.” [Pro Se Pet. for Habeas Corpus, 7/19/22,
      at 4.] Appellant is not entitled to either form of relief, nor is there
      a statute in existence that provides the latter form of relief
      requested.

      As a petition under the PCRA, Appellant’s habeas petition is
      untimely and the court is without jurisdiction to address it. His
      judgment of sentence became final in November of 2007 and he
      therefore had until November of 2008 to file a PCRA [petition].

                                       -8-
J-S13011-23

PCRA Ct. Op. at 4-5 (some citations omitted and some formatting altered).

       Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the PCRA court

properly construed Appellant’s habeas petition as a PCRA petition. See Fahy,

737 A.2d at 223-24 (stating that “the PCRA subsumes the writ of habeas

corpus with respect to remedies offered under the PCRA”); see also Moore,

247 A.3d at 992-93, 997-98 (holding that a claim that a sentencing statute is

void for vagueness is a challenge to the legality of the sentence which is

cognizable under the PCRA, and concluding that the defendant’s “habeas”

petition did not comply with the PCRA’s timeliness requirements); Lawrence,

99 A.3d at 122 (explaining that “claims pertaining to the Eighth Amendment’s

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause [] pertain to the legality of the

sentence” (citation omitted)).

       Further, we discern no error of law in the PCRA court’s conclusion that

Appellant’s PCRA petition is untimely.         See Lawson, 90 A.3d at 4.    Here,

Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on November 27, 2007, ninety

days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for

allowance of appeal, when the time for petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); U.S.

Sup. Ct. Rule 13.       Accordingly, Appellant had until Monday, December 1,

2008,6 to file a timely PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); 1 Pa.C.S.

§ 1908.      Additionally, the certified record does not support Appellant’s
____________________________________________

6The courts were closed on Thursday, November 27, 2008, and the following
Friday for the Thanksgiving holiday.

                                           -9-
J-S13011-23

contention that his judgment sentence has been recently modified.7

Therefore, Appellant’s instant PCRA petition, filed on July 19, 2022, is facially

untimely.

       Finally, we conclude that Appellant has failed to establish any of the

statutory exceptions to the PCRA time bar. Appellant baldly asserts that the

Huntingdon County trial court revealed previously unknown conditions of his

sentence that he could not have previously discovered through the exercise

of due diligence. However, because Appellant did not present any evidence

supporting his claim, he has failed to prove any of the timeliness exceptions

to the PCRA. See Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094; Allison, 235 A.3d at 364.8

____________________________________________

7 It is well-established that the “[a]ppellant has the responsibility to make
sure that the record forwarded to an appellate court contains those documents
necessary to allow a complete and judicious assessment of the issues raised
on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Wint, 730 A.2d 965, 967 (Pa. Super. 1999)
(citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1921, Note
(stating that “[u]ltimate responsibility for a complete record rests with the
party raising an issue that requires appellate court access to record materials”
(citation omitted)).

8 We also note that Appellant’s reliance on Lugo is unavailing. First, Lugo is
an unpublished decision by this Court that was filed prior to May 1, 2019.
Therefore, the case is not only non-precedential, but may not be cited or relied
upon for its persuasive value. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 249
A.3d 903, 910 n.9 (Pa. 2021); Pa.R.A.P. 126(b). Second, even if Lugo could
be cited for its persuasive value, it is not applicable. In Lugo, this Court
concluded that because the defendant had appealed following resentencing,
the defendant could “only raise claims pertaining to his new sentence.” Lugo,
2019 WL 256503, at *3; see also Commonwealth v. Anderson, 801 A.2d
1264, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2002) (the same). As previously stated, Appellant’s
judgment of sentence became final on November 27, 2007, and the certified
record does not support Appellant’s contention that his judgment of sentence
had been recently modified.

                                          - 10 -
J-S13011-23

Therefore, the PCRA court correctly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction

to review the merits of Appellant’s untimely petition. See Brown, 111 A.3d

at 175; Miller, 102 A.3d at 995-96. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/26/2023

                                    - 11 -