Court Opinion

ID: 9400879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:11:10.397912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.638417
License: Public Domain

J-S30027-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 601 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 24, 2021
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-45-CR-0002238-2009

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY McCAFFERY, J.:                          FILED JUNE 9, 2023

        William Scott Ritter, Jr. (Appellant), appeals pro se from the order

entered November 24, 2021, in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas

denying his “Petition for Post Conviction Collateral Relief Pursuant to 42

Pa.C.S. § 9545 and/or Writ of Coram Nobis.”            We quash this appeal as

untimely filed.

        Upon our initial review of this matter, we observed that Appellant’s

notice of appeal ─ filed on February 23, 2022 ─ appeared to be untimely filed

from the order denying relief on November 24, 2021. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)

(requiring appeal be filed within “30 days after the entry of the order from

which the appeal is taken”). The docket indicates that notice of the order was

sent to Appellant by first class mail on the day it was entered ─ November 24,

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S30027-22

2021. See Docket Entry, 11/24/21. The record also includes an affidavit

signed by the Monroe County Senior Deputy Clerk that attests the order was

mailed   to   Appellant   on   November   29th.    See   Affidavit,   11/29/21.

Nevertheless, Appellant insists the order was not mailed to him until January

27, 2022. See Appellant’s Brief at 30-31. Further, in response a rule to show

cause issued by this Court, Appellant implied he was in possession of a

postmarked envelope that would support his claim. See Appellant’s Response

to Rule to Show Cause, 5/19/22, at 2. Therefore, we remanded the case to

the trial court to conduct a limited hearing to determine when its November

24th order was mailed to Appellant, so that we could determine if the appeal

was timely filed.

      The trial court conducted a hearing on March 21, 2023, at which time

Appellant failed to provide any documentation to support his assertion that

the order was not mailed to him until January of 2022. See Order, 5/30/23,

at 1 (unpaginated). However, Appellant continued to insist that the United

States Postal Service (USPS) could provide evidence supporting his allegation.

Accordingly, the trial court granted Appellant’s request “to direct the [USPS]

to investigate and provide a mail image of the envelope containing [the court’s

o]rder” and “left the record open for 45 days” so that Appellant could

supplement the record. See id. Appellant failed to do so.

      On May 30, 2023, the trial court entered an order determining that its

November 24th order denying Appellant’s petition was “served upon

[Appellant] by the Court [no later than] November 30, 2021, as reflected in

                                     -2-
J-S30027-22

the docket entries[,]”1 so that Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal did not

result “from a breakdown in the court system.” Order, 5/30/23.

       Upon our review, we agree Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on February

22, 2022, was untimely, and that Appellant did not prove that his failure to

file a timely notice of appeal resulted from a breakdown in the operations of

the court.    See Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157, 160 (Pa.

Super. 2019) (breakdown in court system may excuse untimely notice of

appeal). Because we have “no jurisdiction to consider untimely appeals,” we

quash this appeal. See Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242, 1244-

45 (Pa. Super. 2015).

       Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/9/2023

____________________________________________

1 It is unclear why the trial court referred to the November 30, 2021, date in
its order. As noted above, the docket entries indicate the November 24th
order was mailed that same day, while an affidavit filed by the Senior Deputy
Clerk indicates it was mailed on November 29th. Regardless, even if we
determine the order was mailed on November 30, 2021, Appellant’s notice of
appeal was not filed until February 22, 2022, which would still be untimely.

                                           -3-