Court Opinion

ID: 9389375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 16:08:08.716897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.793857
License: Public Domain

J-A10026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee          :
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
 ELIJAH WEIR                         :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :        No. 527 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 18, 2021
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006511-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee          :
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
 ELIJAH WEIR                         :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :        No. 528 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 18, 2021
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006689-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee          :
                                     :
              v.                     :
                                     :
 ELIJAH WEIR                         :
                                     :
                   Appellant         :        No. 529 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 18, 2021
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007055-2016
J-A10026-23

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
 ELIJAH WEIR                          :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :       No. 530 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 18, 2021
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007056-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
 ELIJAH WEIR                          :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :       No. 531 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 18, 2021
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007057-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellee           :
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
 ELIJAH WEIR                          :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :       No. 532 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 18, 2021
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010906-2016

                                -2-
J-A10026-23

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                               FILED APRIL 25, 2023

        Appellant, Elijah Weir, appeals pro se from the order entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying his serial petition filed

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

We affirm.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

January 17, 2017, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea at multiple

docket numbers to robbery, burglary, simple assault, theft, possessing

instruments of crime, and other offenses. The court sentenced Appellant on

April 18, 2017, to an aggregate 8 to 20 years’ imprisonment, plus 10 years’

probation, across all dockets. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.

        On November 8, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court

appointed counsel, who filed a “no-merit” letter on May 6, 2019. On May 10,

2019, the court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition per

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907; Appellant did not respond. The court denied PCRA relief on

June 13, 2019.       On June 15, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se request for

reinstatement of his appeal rights nunc pro tunc.          The court reinstated

Appellant’s appeal rights on August 11, 2021. Nevertheless, the record does

not indicate that Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

                                           -3-
J-A10026-23

       On September 27, 2021, Appellant filed the current, untitled prayer for

relief pro se, which the court treated as a serial PCRA petition. In his filing,

Appellant claimed he was not guilty and alleged that his guilty pleas were

unlawfully induced by counsel.                 Appellant did not acknowledge the

untimeliness of his PCRA petition or plead any exception to the PCRA’s time-

bar. On September 30, 2021, the court issued Rule 907 notice. Appellant did

not respond. The court denied PCRA relief on October 18, 2021. This appeal

followed.1 On June 22, 2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise

statement per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied on July 25, 2022.

       Preliminarily, any petition for post-conviction collateral relief will

generally be considered a PCRA petition, even if styled as a request for habeas

corpus relief, if the petition raises issues for which the relief sought is available

under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d

638 (1998); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (stating PCRA shall be sole means of

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed separate pro se notices of appeal on February 7, 2022, at
each underlying docket. Although the notices of appeal are facially untimely,
the certified docket entries do not contain any notation regarding proper
service of the October 18, 2021 order denying relief. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
114(C)(2)(c) (providing that criminal docket entries shall contain date of
service of order or court notice. Consequently, we will not quash this appeal
as untimely. See Commonwealth v. Midgley, 2023 PA Super 18, ___ A.3d
___ (Pa.Super. Feb. 7, 2023) (holding that where there is no indication on
trial court docket that notice has been given, appeal period has not started to
run; in this situation, we will treat appeal as timely).

We further note that on April 22, 2022, this Court granted Appellant’s request
to consolidate the appeals.

                                           -4-
J-A10026-23

obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and

statutory remedies for same purpose).

      As well, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.

Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa.Super. 2016).                 A PCRA

petition, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one

year of the date the underlying judgment of sentence becomes final.           42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence is 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.”     42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).      The statutory

exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow very limited circumstances to excuse

the late filing of a petition; a petitioner must also assert the exception within

the time allowed under the statute. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) and (b)(2).

      Instantly, Appellant’s current filing claimed actual innocence and alleged

that counsel unlawfully induced his guilty plea. As these claims are cognizable

under the PCRA, the court properly treated the petition under the confines of

the PCRA.      See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii-iii); Peterkin, supra.

Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on May 18, 2017, which was

30 days after the court sentenced Appellant and the date by which Appellant

had to file his direct appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (allowing 30 days to file

notice of appeal); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Appellant did not file the current

prayer for relief until September 27, 2021, which is patently untimely.

                                      -5-
J-A10026-23

      Significantly, Appellant did not assert any exception to the PCRA time-

bar in his current petition.    Likewise, he does not make any argument

concerning an exception to the PCRA time-bar in his principal brief on appeal.

In an amended brief (filed without leave of court), Appellant cites the

“governmental interference” and “newly-discovered fact” exceptions to the

time-bar (see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-ii)), but he does not develop a

cogent argument regarding how either exception renders his PCRA petition

timely. We will not develop Appellant’s argument for him on appeal. See

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 631 Pa. 1, 46, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (2014),

cert. denied, 576 U.S. 1009, 135 S.Ct. 2817, 192 L.Ed.2d 857 (2015)

(explaining that while Pennsylvania appellate courts historically have liberally

construed materials filed by pro se litigants, pro se status does not entitle

litigant to any special benefit, and court cannot be expected to become

litigant’s counsel or find more in written pro se submission than is fairly

conveyed therein). Under these circumstances, Appellant’s current petition

remains time-barred and the PCRA court properly denied relief. Accordingly,

we affirm.

      Order affirmed.

                                     -6-
J-A10026-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/25/2023

                          -7-