Court Opinion

ID: 9370100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 19:08:03.184624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.301304
License: Public Domain

J-A05010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RICHARD HEWLETT                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2241 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 29, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0000583-2015

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                          FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2023

        Richard Hewlett appeals pro se from the order, entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing his Post-Conviction Relief

Act (PCRA)1 petition as untimely. After careful review, we vacate and remand.

        On September 4, 2015, Hewlett was found guilty, following a

consolidated jury trial, of aggravated assault on a police officer,2 carrying a

firearm without a license,3 and possessing a firearm by a prohibited person.4

Hewlett, a repeat felony offender (RFEL), was sentenced to an aggregate term

of 13½ to 27 years’ imprisonment. Hewlett filed a post-sentence motion that
____________________________________________

1   See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

2   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a).

3   Id. at § 6106(a)(1).

4   Id. at § 6105(a)(1).
J-A05010-23

was denied by operation of law on March 15, 2016.5 Hewlett filed a direct

appeal; our Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on June 5, 2018.

Commonwealth v. Hewlett, 189 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2018). On June 20,

2018, Hewlett filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition on November 20,

2018. Commonwealth v. Hewlett., 197 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2018) (Table).

       On June 22, 2018, while his petition for allowance of appeal was pending

with the Supreme Court, Hewlett filed a pro se PCRA petition.        The court

continued the matter, noting “Defendant has an outstanding allocat[u]r

petition,” and relisted the case “for a status [on] 11/30/18.” See Trial Court

Docket Entries No. 138-43, 8/17/18 & 11/30/18 (italics added).6 The matter

was further continued several times to allow for defense and Commonwealth

filings. Id. at No. 145-62, 167.

       On June 19, 2019, the PCRA court appointed counsel, Lawrence J.

Bozzelli, Esquire, who filed an amended petition. On September 20, 2019,

the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss Hewlett’s petition. On September

27, 2019, the PCRA court gave Hewlett Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent
____________________________________________

5Hewett prematurely filed a notice of appeal while his post-sentence motions
were pending. Our Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory. See Per
Curiam Order, 1/19/16.

6 Notably, the Supreme Court had denied Hewlett’s petition for allowance of
appeal on November 20, 2018, ten days prior to the court’s November 30,
2018 docket entries. However, the Supreme Court’s letter indicating the
petition was denied is dated December 10, 2018. This letter also shows a
“filed” date of December 17, 2018 (stamp indicating filed with Appellate Trial
Office of Judicial Records).

                                           -2-
J-A05010-23

to dismiss his petition without a hearing, concluding that the issues raised in

his petition were without merit.          On December 6, 2019, the PCRA court

dismissed Hewlett’s petition. Hewlett filed a collateral appeal claiming trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the discretionary aspects of his

sentence.    Our Court quashed the appeal, concluding that the PCRA court

lacked the authority to consider Hewlett’s petition where it was filed before

his judgment of sentence became final. Commonwealth v. Hewlett, 245

A.3d 1096 (Pa. Super. 2020) (Table).

       On January 21, 2021, Hewlett filed the instant pro se PCRA petition. On

February 7, 2022, Hewlett filed a pro se amended petition.7 On June 10, 2022,

the PCRA court gave its Rule 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition

without a hearing. Hewlett did not file a response. On July 29, 2022, the

court dismissed Hewlett’s petition as untimely. Hewlett filed this timely pro

se appeal.

       When reviewing an order denying PCRA relief, we must “determine

whether it is supported by the record and is free of legal error.”

Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287, 296 (Pa. 2017). Furthermore,

we note:

       [T]he PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a petition without a
       hearing when the court is satisfied “there are no genuine issues
       concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled to post-
____________________________________________

7 In his amended petition, Hewlett claims he is eligible for relief on his patently
untimely PCRA petition by alleging that he can prove the “after-discovered
facts” exception to the PCRA timeliness requirements. See Pro Se Amended
PCRA Petition, 2/7/22, at ¶ 5(II).

                                           -3-
J-A05010-23

      conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose would be
      served by further proceedings. To obtain reversal of a PCRA
      court’s decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing, an
      appellant must show that he raised a genuine issue of fact which,
      if resolved in his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that
      the court otherwise abused its discretion in denying a hearing.”

Id. at 297 (citations and some punctuation omitted).

      Before we may address Hewett’s substantive claims on appeal, we must

first determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider his initial

PCRA petition. Under the PCRA, a petition “shall be filed within one year of

the date the judgment of sentence becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

Thus, a PCRA petition may only be filed after an appellant has waived or

exhausted his or her direct appeal rights. See Commonwealth v. Fralic,

625 A.2d 1249, 1252 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1993); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9545(b)(3) (“A judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review,

including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking

the review.”).

      As a prior panel of our Court recognized, Hewlett’s first petition was filed

prematurely while his petition for allowance of appeal was pending in the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Hewlett, 245 A.3d

1096 (Pa. Super. 2020) (Table).         Although the PCRA court postponed

consideration of the matter until the Supreme Court ruled on Hewlett’s

petition, it does not change the fact that the PCRA court “had no jurisdiction

to hold and later dispose of [Hewlett’s] premature PCRA petition before his

[petition for allowance of appeal was denied].” Commonwealth v. Smith,

                                      -4-
J-A05010-23

244 A.3d 502, 507 (Pa. Super. 2020). Rather, because his petition had been

filed while a direct appeal was pending, “the PCRA court should [have]

dismiss[ed] it without prejudice [to Hewlett’s] right to file a petition once his

direct appeal rights have been exhausted.” Commonwealth v. Bates, 272

A.3d 984, 986 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations, corrections, and some quotation

marks omitted). Notably, in Commonwealth v. Kubis, 808 A.2d 196 (Pa.

Super. 2002), our Court noted that a “premature petition does not constitute

a first petition” because the PCRA has no applicability until the judgment of

sentence becomes final. Id. at 197 n.4.8

       Instantly, Hewlett’s judgment of sentence became final on February 20,

2019, ninety days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition

for allowance of appeal. See Sup. Ct. R. 13 (appellants have 90 days from

denial of Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s petition for allowance of appeal to file

petition for certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court).      Thus, Hewlett had until

February 20, 2020, to file his PCRA. Hewlett’s instant petition, which must be

treated as his first, see Kubis, supra, was filed on January 21, 2021. Thus,

it is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

       However, in Commonwealth v. Ramos, 14 A.3d 894 (Pa. Super.

2011), our Court concluded that even if an “[a]ppellant’s petition appears to

be untimely and he appears to be ineligible for PCRA relief, counsel for

____________________________________________

8 See also Smith, supra at 507 (concluding appellant’s prematurely filed
PCRA petition and PCRA court’s order denying premature petition “were both
legal nullities”).

                                           -5-
J-A05010-23

[a]ppellant may be able to overcome both of those hurdles through an

examination of all of the relevant circumstances.”               Id. at 896.    See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C), (F)(2) (indigent, first-time PCRA petitioners entitled to

appointment of counsel throughout post-conviction collateral proceedings,

including   any    appeal    from    disposition   of   PCRA   petition);   see also

Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177, 1180 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011)

(“[I]t is undisputed that first[-]time PCRA petitioners have a rule-based right

to counsel.”).

       Here, because Hewlett is an indigent,9 first-time PCRA petitioner, the

PCRA court erred when it declined to appoint Hewlett counsel to assist him

with his petition. Bates, supra at 989. Therefore, we must vacate the order

dismissing Hewlett’s current PCRA petition and remand for the appointment

of PCRA counsel.10 Cousar, supra.

       Order vacated.       Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this

decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

9 In his current pro se PCRA petition, Hewlett avers that he has 89 cents in his
prison account, has no other financial resources, does not have a lawyer, and
is “without financial resources or otherwise unable to obtain a lawyer.” PCRA
Petition, 1/21/21, at ¶¶ 16(A-B)-17(A).

10In the alternative, if Hewlett wishes to waive his right to counsel, the trial
court shall conduct a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713
A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).

                                           -6-
J-A05010-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/10/2023

                          -7-