Court Opinion

ID: 9840444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 16:09:12.35866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:27.776986
License: Public Domain

J-S18015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 GREGORY THOMAS                     :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 2944 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022
         In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
         Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0316801-1989

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 GREGORY THOMAS                     :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 2948 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022
         In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
         Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0800011-1990

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
              v.                    :
                                    :
                                    :
 GREGORY THOMAS                     :
                                    :
                   Appellant        :   No. 2951 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022
         In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
         Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0820411-1990
J-S18015-23

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                     FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2023

       Gregory Thomas appeals, pro se, from the order dismissing his serial

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court found that Thomas’s petition was untimely and

failed to meet one of the enumerated exceptions to timeliness provided by the

PCRA. After careful review, we affirm.

       In 1991, Thomas was found guilty of two counts of murder and related

offenses. See Commonwealth v. Gregory, 1601 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. filed

August 8, 2014) (unpublished memorandum). Thomas was sentenced to two

concurrent life sentences on the murder charges. See id. at ¶ 3.

       Thomas filed the instant PCRA petition, his seventh, on February 1,

2018. See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, 2/1/18. The pro se

petition presented various news articles regarding payment for court

appointed attorneys, seemingly making an argument that counsel was per se

ineffective due to being underpaid. See id. The petition claimed that it met

the governmental interference and newly discovered fact exceptions to the

PCRA’s time-bar. See id. In a later amendment, Thomas referred broadly to

claims of corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department and District

Attorney’s Office and attached a brief filed by the Philadelphia District

Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit in an unrelated case. See Motion

for Leave to File an Amendment, 9/9/20.
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -2-
J-S18015-23

      Thomas’s PCRA petition was dismissed on November 2, 2022. Thomas

filed a notice of appeal to this Court which listed his three lower court docket

numbers. See Notice of Appeal, 11/14/22. This Court’s docket reflects three

copies of the notice of appeal, each one with a checkmark next to one of the

three lower court docket numbers. See Notices of Appeal-IFP Pending,

12/9/22. When appealing to this Court, an appellant must file separate notices

of appeal for each docket when one order resolves issues on multiple lower

court dockets. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa.

2018). This Court will accept notices of appeal that list multiple docket

numbers when the appropriate number of appeals have been filed, especially

if each notice somehow highlights an individual docket. See Commonwealth

v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). Accordingly,

this Court accepted Thomas’s notices of appeal and consolidated them sua

sponte. See Order, 1/23/23.

      When we review an order dismissing a PCRA petition we determine

whether the decision is supported by the record and free of legal error. See

Commonwealth v. Jarosz, 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa. Super. 2016). Here, the

PCRA court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider Thomas’s petition

because the petition was untimely and failed to prove an exception to the

timeliness provision of the PCRA. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/22, at 1.

      A PCRA petition must be filed within the one-year period immediately

following the date on which the judgment of sentence becomes final. See

Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). This

                                     -3-
J-S18015-23

time-bar implicates our jurisdiction, and we may not ignore it to assess the

merits of a petition. See id. A judgment of sentence becomes final when the

direct review is complete or the time for seeking direct review expires. See

id.

         Our review of the record reflects that Thomas’s judgment of sentence

became final in 1993, after the time to file a writ of certiorari to the United

States Supreme Court expired. See Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi, 275 A.3d

986, 995 (Pa. Super. 2022). The instant PCRA petition was filed on February

1, 2018, making it patently untimely. See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral

Relief, 2/1/18.

         Nevertheless, a petitioner may overcome the time-bar when they allege

in their petition and prove one of three exceptions. See Hernandez, 79 A.3d

649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). These exceptions include: that the claim was not

raised previously due to interference by government officials; that the

petitioner previously did not know, and could not have known, through due

diligence, the facts of the claim earlier; and that the petitioner is asserting a

right which has been recognized since the judgment of sentence became final

and has been held to apply retroactively. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (b)(1)(i)-

(iii).

         Thomas attempts to invoke the government interference exception at

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and the newly discovered fact exception at 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). See Motion for Leave to file an Amendment

Pending, 9/9/20, at 2. Thomas’s arguments combine the two exceptions.

                                      -4-
J-S18015-23

Thomas claims that Brady1 material was withheld in his case, amounting to

governmental interference. See id. He then claims that he was made aware

of this governmental interference when the district attorney’s office filed a

brief in an unrelated case and that filing constitutes a newly discovered fact.

See id. Thomas makes no attempt to connect the brief admitting Brady

violations in an unrelated case with his own case other than they were both

prosecuted around the same time and that the deficiencies may have been

institutional. See id. at 3.

       A Brady violation may satisfy the governmental interference and newly

discovered fact exceptions to the time-bar. See Commonwealth v.

Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (Pa. 2019). However, the fact or facts that

Thomas claims are newly discovered or were wrongfully withheld by the

government “must bear some logical connection to a plausible claim for relief.”

Commonwealth v. Myers, ___ A.3d ___, 831 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed

July 20, 2023) (citation omitted).

       Here, Thomas’s attempt at invoking an exception to the time-bar fails

as he does not plead or prove any facts showing the government interfered in

his case, merely that the Commonwealth conceded interference occurred in

someone else’s case. Further, Thomas fails to show any connection between

the Commonwealth’s brief in the unrelated case and his claims in the present

matter. As the PCRA court cogently explains, Thomas has:

____________________________________________

1 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

                                           -5-
J-S18015-23

      failed to explain how an unrelated brief citing prosecutorial
      misconduct in an unrelated case suggests that the Commonwealth
      withheld exculpatory evidence in his case. There is no indication
      [Thomas] was prosecuted and investigated by the same
      prosecutors and detectives as [in the unrelated case,] nor has he
      articulated what, precisely, was withheld. The attached brief
      simply transforms his bald assertions into pure speculation.

PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/2022, at 1-2.

      Thomas’s appellate brief does not address any of the deficiencies cited

by the PCRA court. He therefore has not provided any basis for this Court to

conclude the PCRA court erred in finding that he had not successfully pled any

exception to the time-bar.

      As Thomas failed to successfully plead the existence of any exception to

the PCRA’s time-bar, the PCRA court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction

over Thomas’s petition. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468

(Pa. Super. 2013).

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/18/2023

                                     -6-