Court Opinion

ID: 9555994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 18:12:08.255184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:55.825229
License: Public Domain

J-S15043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  HAROLD V. HOSKINS                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1333 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 23, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0001185-2005

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                    FILED: AUGUST 15, 2023

       Harold Hoskins (“Hoskins”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his

second petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 We

affirm.

       In 2007, Hoskins was convicted of multiple counts of attempted

homicide and robbery, as well as related offenses. Following his conviction,

Hoskins absconded until he was apprehended four years later in 2011. On

April 7, 2011, the trial court sentenced Hoskins to an aggregate term of

twenty-seven to sixty years of prison. Hoskins filed a post-sentence motion

which the trial court denied. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence,

and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on April 25, 2012. See

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9541-9546.
J-S15043-23

Commonwealth v. Hoskins, 48 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished

memorandum), appeal denied, 53 A.3d 756 (Pa. 2012).

       In November 2012, Hoskins filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, which

the PCRA court ultimately dismissed. This Court affirmed the dismissal order,

and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v.

Hoskins, 181 A.3d 437 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum),

appeal denied, 187 A.3d 209 (Pa. 2018).

       On February 16, 2021, Hoskins mailed a pro se letter to the trial court

judge wherein he apologized for absconding and requested that the judge

forgive him for doing so and run his sentences for attempted homicide

concurrently rather than consecutively. Hoskins additionally claimed that the

trial court judge had notified him at sentencing that she saw “something wrong

with my case. But you was [sic] not going to look at it at that time.” Pro Se

Letter, 2/16/21. Hoskins provided no further details. The court treated the

pro se letter as a second PCRA petition.2 The PCRA court appointed counsel,

who filed a motion to withdraw from representation as well as 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). The

____________________________________________

2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (providing that “[t]he action established in this
subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and
encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same
purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus
and coram nobis.”).

                                           -2-
J-S15043-23

PCRA court thereafter granted counsel’s petition to withdraw and issued a

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing.

Therein, the PCRA court concluded that Hoskins’ petition was untimely, that

he failed to plead or prove any exception to the PCRA’s one-year time bar,

and that the court consequently lacked jurisdiction to address the petition.

Hoskins responded to the Rule 907 notice by filing, without leave of court, an

amended pro se PCRA petition. Therein, Hoskins did not acknowledge the

untimeliness of his petition, nor did he attempt to plead or prove any exception

to the PCRA’s time bar. The PCRA court treated the pro se amended petition

as a response to the Rule 907 notice.            Nevertheless, the PCRA court

determined that Hoskins’ filing failed to set forth any basis to preclude

dismissal. Accordingly, on August 23, 2022, the PCRA court entered an order

dismissing the petition. Hoskins filed a timely notice of appeal, and both he

and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.3

       Hoskins raises the following issue for our review:

             Did the sentencing court abused [sic] its discrection [sic]
       imposed an illegal sentnece [sic] by sentencing consecutively
       separate impermissible and unlawful sentences for two offenses
       of criminal attempted homicide at counts 8 & 9, arising from a
       single criminal act, deriving from the same conduct that should
       hvae [sic] merge [sic] for sentencing in violation of 42 Pa.C.S.A.
       § 9765; double jeopardy, due process and equal protectioon [sic]
       under both the Pa. and U.S. Constitutions.
____________________________________________

3In lieu of authoring a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court referred this
Court to its Rule 907 notice, which explained its rationale for dismissing
Hoskins’ petition pursuant to Rule 1925(a)(1). See Opinion, 10/6/22, at 2;
see also Rule 907 Notice, 6/27/22, at 1-3.

                                           -3-
J-S15043-23

Hoskins’ Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      Our standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is well-

settled:

             We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in
      the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.
      This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the
      evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it
      is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This
      Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the
      record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the
      factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those
      findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we
      afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the
      petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de
      novo and our scope of review plenary.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations

omitted).

      Under the PCRA, any petition including a second or subsequent petition

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

final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence 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.   See   42

Pa.C.S.A.        § 9545(b)(3).      The    PCRA’s    timeliness    requirements   are

jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues

raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed.          See Commonwealth v.

Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).

                                           -4-
J-S15043-23

      Here, Hoskins’ judgment of sentence became final on July 24, 2012,

ninety days after our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal, and he

declined to petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13 (stating that an

appellant must file petition for writ of certiorari with the United States

Supreme Court within ninety days after entry of judgment by state court of

last resort).   Thus, Hoskins had until July 24, 2013, to file a timely PCRA

petition. The instant petition, filed on February 16, 2021, was filed more than

seven years after the judgment of sentence became final.         Therefore, the

instant petition is facially untimely under the PCRA.       See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9545(b)(3).

      Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the

petitioner can plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), which provides:

      (b) Time for filing petition.—

       (1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or
       subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the
       judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the
       petitioner proves that:

          (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

                                     -5-
J-S15043-23

            (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.A. § 9545(b)(1).       Any PCRA petition invoking one of these

exceptions “shall be filed within one year of the date the claim could have

been presented.”     Id. § 9545(b)(2).     If the petition is untimely and the

petitioner has not pleaded and proven a timeliness exception, the petition

must be dismissed without a hearing because Pennsylvania courts are without

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition. See Commonwealth v.

Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      In the instant matter, Hoskins failed to plead or prove any timeliness

exception in either his pro se petition or his pro se amended petition. Thus,

the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.

Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Hoskins’ second pro se PCRA

petition.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/15/2023

                                     -6-
J-S15043-23

              -7-