Court Opinion

ID: 9929476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 18:10:03.227137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:33.078205
License: Public Domain

J-S02015-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JAVON HYMAN                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 763 EDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 2, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-004228-2014

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JAVON HYMAN                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 765 EDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 2, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-004227-2014

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 2, 2024

       Javon Hyman appeals from the order,1 entered in the Court of Common

Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Hyman filed separate notices of appeal at each docket number in compliance

with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). By order dated
May 4, 2023, this Court, sua sponte, consolidated Hyman’s appeals in
accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 513.
J-S02015-24

Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (“PCRA”). Upon review, we

affirm.

       On March 2, 2016, a jury convicted Hyman of two counts of robbery and

related offenses in conjunction with two separate robberies of a MetroPCS

store in West Philadelphia. On May 13, 2016, the trial court sentenced Hyman

to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration, followed by 20 years of

probation.     Upon consideration of post-sentence motions, the trial court

reduced Hyman’s probationary tail to 10 years. Hyman filed an appeal to this

Court, which affirmed his judgment of sentence.             See Commonwealth v.

Hyman, 2671 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 13, 2018) (unpublished

memorandum decision). Our Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal and

remanded      the   matter    to   this   Court   for   reconsideration   in   light   of

Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017) (holding that time

attributable to normal progression of case is not delay for purposes of

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 calculation). See Commonwealth v. Hyman, 203 A.3d

982 (Pa. 2019) (Table). On remand, this Court once again affirmed Hyman’s

judgment of sentence. See id., 219 A.3d 274 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Table). The

Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. See id., 223 A.3d 665 (Pa. 2020)

(Table).

       On February 2, 2022, Hyman filed the instant, pro se, PCRA petition.

The court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner/Finley2 “no-merit” letter.
____________________________________________

2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.

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

                                           -2-
J-S02015-24

Following the issuance by the court of a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to

dismiss, Hyman filed a “Motion to Object and/or Compel Counsel” on April 20,

2022. Thereafter, the court appointed new counsel who, on October 3, 2022,

also filed a Turner/Finley letter. The PCRA court issued notice of intent to

dismiss on December 19, 2022, and, on February 2, 2023, dismissed Hyman’s

petition as untimely and granted counsel permission to withdraw. Hyman filed

a timely pro se notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal.3 Hyman raises the following

claims for our review:

       1. [Was Hyman’s] constitutional right to a speedy trial violated?

       2. Was [Hyman’s] right to effective assistance of counsel
          violated?

       3. Was [Hyman] timely in filing his issue in first subsequent PCRA?

Brief of Appellant, at 3 (unpaginated) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       Prior to addressing the merits of Hyman’s appeal, we must determine

whether his PCRA petition was timely filed. The PCRA timeliness requirements

are jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, a PCRA court cannot hear

untimely PCRA petitions. Commonwealth v. Rienzi, 827 A.2d 369, 371 (Pa.

2003). Here, Hyman’s petition for allowance of appeal was denied on January

22, 2020, and he did not seek certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

Accordingly, Hyman’s judgment of sentence became final 90 days later, on

____________________________________________

3 Hyman’s Rule 1925(b) statement was styled as a “brief,” containing sixteen

paragraphs covering the procedural history of his case as well as his legal
arguments.

                                           -3-
J-S02015-24

April 21, 2020, when the time for filing a writ of certiorari expired. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Sup. Ct. R. 13. Hyman had one year from that date,

or until April 21, 2021, to file a timely PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9545(b)(1) (PCRA petition, including second or subsequent petition, must be

filed within one year of date underlying judgment of sentence becomes final).

Hyman filed the instant petition on February 2, 2022, more than 1½ years

after his judgment of sentence became final. Accordingly, Hyman’s petition

was untimely and the PCRA court did not have jurisdiction to consider its

merits unless he pled and proved one of the three statutory exceptions to the

PCRA time bar.4

       In his pro se PCRA petition, Hyman asserted that his speedy trial rights

under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 were violated and that trial counsel was ineffective for

____________________________________________

4 The statutory exceptions are as follows:

       (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

       (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)(i-iii).

                                           -4-
J-S02015-24

failing to “convey a proper argument” with respect to his Rule 600 motion.

Pro Se PCRA Petition, 2/2/22, at 10. He neither pled nor proved an exception

to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.

      In his response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice and on appeal,

Hyman attempts to assert that PCRA counsel was ineffective for “not raising,

or even reviewing or [] inquiring into Hyman’s reason for late filing” of his

PCRA petition. Brief of Appellant, at 8 (unpaginated). See Commonwealth

v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021) (PCRA petitioner may, after PCRA court

denies relief, and after obtaining new counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of

PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at first opportunity to do so, even if on PCRA

appeal).   Hyman asserts that his late filing was due to pandemic-related

restrictions at SCI-Houtzdale, which denied him access to the law library. He

claims that he “was not permitted to [visit] the law library until [D]ecember

2021[,] at which time the law library was still running under limited access[.]”

Brief of Appellant, at 6 (unpaginated).      Accordingly, he argues that the

pandemic-related restrictions should qualify as “extraordinary circumstances”

excusing his untimely filing. Id. at 7 (unpaginated). We disagree.

      This Court has repeatedly held that pandemic-era restrictions on access

to prison law libraries do not satisfy the governmental interference exception

to the PCRA time bar. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 2023 WL 2489952, *6

                                     -5-
J-S02015-24

(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 14, 2023) (unpublished memorandum decision)5

(“allegations of restrictions on access to law libraries or legal resources which

do not completely prevent an inmate from preparing legal filings, do not

satisfy the governmental interference exception”); Commonwealth v. Lee,

2023 WL 19249, *3-4 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 3, 2023) (unpublished

memorandum decision) (defendant failed to prove governmental interference

based on pandemic-related restrictions on access to prison library where, inter

alia, he failed to argue conditions of his incarceration were illegal).

       Moreover, the notion that Hyman was prevented from timely filing his

PCRA petition because of restrictions on library access is belied by the fact

that he filed a federal habeas corpus petition in November 2020, which fell

within the one-year period for filing a timely PCRA petition and the time he

alleges he was not permitted to visit the prison library. See Commonwealth

v. Lambing, 297 A.3d 738 (Pa. Super. 2023) (Table) (filing of post-sentence

motion disproved claim that pandemic-related prison restrictions deprived

appellant of ability to file timely PCRA petition).

       Accordingly, because Hyman’s PCRA petition was facially untimely and

he failed to plead and prove any exception to the jurisdictional time bar, the

PCRA court properly denied him relief.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

5   Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(2), unpublished non-precedential
memorandum decisions of this Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for
their persuasive value.

                                           -6-
J-S02015-24

Date: 2/2/2024

                 -7-