Court Opinion

ID: 9895290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 17:09:12.673067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:56.038383
License: Public Domain

J-S32030-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 BRIAN COLON                             :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 533 MDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 23, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-22-CR-0002699-2019,
            CP-22-CR-0002865-2019, CP-22-CR-0003310-2018

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:             FILED: NOVEMBER 6, 2023

     Brian Colon appeals pro se from the order denying his untimely-filed

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

9541-46. We affirm.

     The pertinent facts and procedural history may be summarized as

follows: On April 8, 2021, Colon entered a negotiated guilty plea to multiple

offenses at three separate dockets in return for an aggregate sentence of

three to six years of imprisonment and a consecutive two-year probationary

term. That same day the trial court imposed this sentence on Colon. He filed

neither post-sentence motions nor a direct appeal.

     On December 23, 2022, Colon filed a pro se document entitled a “Motion

for Nunc Pro Tunc § 9543(a)(2)(iii) PCRA.”    Treating this filing as a PCRA

petition, the PCRA court appointed counsel.     After being granted a time
J-S32030-23

extension, PCRA counsel submitted a “no-merit” letter and a motion to

withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988)

and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

       On March 16, 2023, the PCRA court granted counsel’s motion to

withdraw. The court also filed a Pa.R.A.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss

Colon’s petition without a hearing, because it was untimely filed and Colon

failed to establish a time-bar exception. Colon filed a pro se response. By

order entered March 23, 2023, the PCRA court dismissed Colon’s petition. This

appeal followed.1 The PCRA court did not require Pa.R.A.P. 1925 compliance.

       Colon raises the following two issues on appeal:

              Whether the actions, and judgment exercised by the PCRA
       court misapplied the law and were manifestly unreasonable, which
       is therefore an abuse of discretion and legal error of law in
       violation of Rules of Criminal Procedure 907 and Rules of Criminal
       Procedure 590?

              Whether the actions, and judgment exercised by the PCRA
       court misapplied the law and were manifestly unreasonable, which
       is therefore and abuse of discretion and legal error of law in
       violation of Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure 622?

See Colon’s Brief at 4.

____________________________________________

1 Contrary to the express language of newly amended Pa.R.A.P. 902, Colon

did not file a separate notice of appeal “in each docket in which the order has
been entered.” Rule 902(a). Because this defect does not affect the validity
of this appeal, we have the discretion to take whatever action we deem
appropriate, including “a remand of the matter to the trial court so that the
omitted procedural step may be taken.” Id. As Colon’s PCRA petition is
untimely, see infra, we choose to overlook this procedural defect.

                                           -2-
J-S32030-23

      Before addressing Colon’s substantive claims, however, we must first

determine whether the PCRA court correctly concluded that Colon’s PCRA

petition was untimely filed, and that he failed to establish an exception to the

time bar.

      The    timeliness   of   a   post-conviction   petition   is   jurisdictional.

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

Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or

subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment

becomes final unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an

exception to the time bar is met.

      The three narrow statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar are as

follows: “(1) interference by government officials in the presentation of the

claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized constitutional

right.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii)). In addition, exceptions to the PCRA’s

time bar must be pled in the petition and may not be raised for the first time

on appeal.    Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super.

2007); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that issues not raised before the

lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

Moreover, a PCRA petitioner must file his petition “within one year of date the

claim could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).

      Finally, if a PCRA petition is untimely and the petitioner has not pled and

proven an exception “neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction

                                      -3-
J-S32030-23

over the petition.      Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal

authority    to   address    the    substantive   claims.”   Commonwealth   v.

Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

       Here, Colon’s judgment of sentence became final on May 10, 2023,

thirty days after the time for filing an appeal to this Court expired.2 See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Therefore, Colon had until May 10, 2022, to file a

timely petition. Because Colon filed the petition at issue in December 2022,

it is untimely unless he has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that

one of the enumerated exceptions applies. See Hernandez, supra.

       Our review of Colon’s PCRA petition reveals that he failed to plead or

prove the applicability of any of the PCRA’s timeliness exceptions. Therefore,

his petition is untimely, and this Court, like the PCRA court, is without

jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. Derrickson, supra.

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/06/2023

____________________________________________

2 Because the thirtieth day following the imposition of sentence fell on a
Saturday, Colon had until the following Monday to file a timely appeal. See
generally 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908.

                                           -4-