Court Opinion

ID: 9399349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 17:09:40.920992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.019050
License: Public Domain

J-S12013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    KATHERINE S. HALLOWELL                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1524 MDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 5, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-06-CR-0001665-2019

BEFORE:      KUNSELMAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                             FILED: JUNE 2, 2023

        Katherine S. Hallowell appeals pro se from the order denying her

untimely-filed petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.

        The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows: On February 26,

2019, Hallowell was the sole caretaker of the five-year-old female victim.

While caring for the child, Hallowell became frustrated and assaulted her.

During the assault, the victim struck her head against a hard surface resulting

in a spinal injury and a subdural hematoma that required life-saving

neurosurgical intervention.

        On May 28, 2020, Hallowell entered an open guilty plea to aggravated

assault and endangering the welfare of a child. That same day, the trial court
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S12013-23

sentenced Hallowell to an aggregate term of eight to twenty years of

imprisonment. Following the denial of her post-sentence motion, Hallowell

appealed to this Court.        On December 15, 2020, we rejected Hallowell’s

challenge to the discretionary aspects of her sentence and affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Hallowell, 245 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2020) (non-

precedential decision). Hallowell did not seek further review.

       On March 1, 2021, Hallowell filed a timely PCRA petition and the PCRA

court appointed counsel. Thereafter, PCRA counsel submitted a “no-merit”

letter and a petition 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 December 9, 2021, the PCRA court granted

counsel’s petition to withdraw and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 907 notice of its intent to

dismiss Hallowell’s petition without a hearing. Hallowell filed a response. By

order entered January 25, 2022, the PCRA court dismissed Hallowell’s petition.

       Hallowell did not file a timely appeal.1 Rather, on February 14, 2022,

Hallowell filed a second pro se PCRA petition with this Court, which we

forwarded to the court below. The lower court received the filing on February

____________________________________________

1 On May 31, 2022, Hallowell filed a notice of appeal from the January 25,
2022, order denying her first PCRA petition. The appeal was docketed in this
Court at No. 811 MDA 2022. By order of July 18, 2022, we directed Hallowell
to show cause why that appeal should not be quashed as untimely. After
reviewing Hallowell’s response, this Court quashed the appeal at No. 811 MDA
2022 by order of August 8, 2022.           Thereafter, we denied Hallowell’s
reconsideration motion.

                                           -2-
J-S12013-23

16, 2022, docketed it as a notice of appeal and forwarded the filing back to

this Court, where it was docketed at No. 534 MDA 2022.

      Upon review of the February 16, 2022 pro se filing, this Court, by order

of April 2, 2022, directed Hallowell to show cause why the appeal should not

be quashed because the document bore no semblance to a notice of appeal

and did not comport with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. On

May 10, 2022, Hallowell filed a response in which she claimed that PCRA

counsel’s ineffectiveness and lack of communication resulted in her failure to

file an appeal. Because the February 16, 2022 filing was clearly a second

PCRA petition, this Court, by order of May 20, 2022, directed the court below

to correct its docket to reflect that a PCRA petition, not a notice of appeal, was

filed by Hallowell. After the court complied, we struck the appeal docketed at

No. 534 MDA 2022.

      On August 16, 2022, the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of its

intent to dismiss Hallowell’s second petition as untimely filed. Hallowell filed

two pro se responses. By order entered October 5, 2022, the PCRA court

dismissed Hallowell’s second petition. This timely appeal followed. The PCRA

court did not require Pa.R.A.P. 1925 compliance.

      Hallowell raises the following two issues in her pro se brief:

         Did the sentencing court abuse [its] discretion by imposing
         an aggravated sentence of 8 to 20 years?

         Did the attorn[eys] fail to represent [Hallowell]?

Hallowell’s Brief at 2.

                                      -3-
J-S12013-23

      Hallowell challenges the denial of her most recent attempt to obtain

post-conviction relief.   Using the applicable standard of review, we must

determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record

and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 749-

50 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted). We apply a de novo standard of review to

the PCRA court’s legal conclusions. Id.

      Before reaching Hallowell’s substantive issues, we must first determine

whether the PCRA court correctly concluded that her second petition was

untimely filed, and that she 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 for filing the petition 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

                                      -4-
J-S12013-23

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

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, Hallowell’s judgment of sentence became final on January 14,

2021, thirty days after this Court affirmed her judgment of sentence and the

time for filing a petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court expired.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Therefore, Hallowell had until January 14,

2022, to file a timely petition. Because Hallowell filed her second petition in

February 2022,2 it is untimely unless she has satisfied her burden of pleading

and proving that one of the enumerated exceptions applies. See Hernandez,

supra.

       Our review of Hallowell’s second petition reveals that she has failed to

plead, let alone prove, the applicability of any of the PCRA’s timeliness

exceptions. Therefore, this Court, like the PCRA court, was without jurisdiction

____________________________________________

2 The PCRA court correctly found that, even applying the “prisoner mailbox
rule,” see generally, Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super.
1998), the petition was untimely because the postmark date on Hallowell’s
letter to this Court was February 9, 2022. See Rule 907 Notice, 8/16/22, at
3.

                                           -5-
J-S12013-23

to consider the merits of this appeal. Derrickson, supra. We thus affirm

the PCRA court’s order dismissing Hallowell’s second PCRA petition.

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 06/02/2023

                                    -6-