Com. v. Abney, A. ( 2016 )

J-S60016-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CAREY ABNEY
Appellant No. 80 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order November 24, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0804281-1995
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED AUGUST 23, 2016
Carey Abney appeals, pro se, from the order entered November 24,
2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying his pro
se “Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in the Court[’]s Sentencing Order.”
(hereinafter “sentencing order motion”). Abney contends the trial judge
“deprive[d him] of rights and protections guaranteed him by the U.S.
Constitution’s 1[st], 8[th], 14[th] Amendments and Pennsylvania’s
Constitution’s Article 1 §§ 11, 20 and Article 5 § 9 when [the trial judge]
denied [Abney] [a]ccess [t]o [t]he [c]ourt, by denying [Abney] a hearing on
his motion[.]” Abney’s Brief at iv. Based upon the following, we affirm.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60016-16
The trial court has set forth the procedural history of this case, as
follows:
On September 9, 1996, following a non-jury trial before the
Honorable Judge Juanita Kidd Stout, defendant Carey Abney was
convicted of one count of murder of the first degree (18 Pa.C.S.
§ 2502(a)), and one count of possessing an instrument of crime
(“PIC”) (18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a)). [Abney] was immediately
sentenced to life in prison. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a)(1).
[Abney] filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court. The
trial court filed its 1925(a) Opinion on May 9, 1997. On October
17, 1997, the Superior Court affirmed [Abney’s] judgment of
sentence. [Abney] did not seek allocator, and his judgment of
sentence became final on November 1[7], 1997. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9545(b)(1) & (3). On October 22, 1998, [Abney] filed a pro se
Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA Petition”). Judge Stout having
retired from the bench, the case was re-assigned to the
Honorable John J. Poserina. [Abney] proceeded pro se, with
James Bruno, Esquire, as standby counsel. On March 9, 2001,
the PCRA Court issued an order dismissing [Abney’s] PCRA
Petition without a hearing. [Abney] appealed the dismissal of his
petition, and the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA Court’s
dismissal on August 22, 2002.
On March 24, 2008, [Abney] filed his second pro se Motion for
Post–Conviction Collateral Relief (“Second Petition”). On January
15, 2009, Judge Poserina issued an order dismissing [Abney’s]
Second Petition without a hearing. [Abney] again appealed the
dismissal of his petition, and the Superior Court affirmed the
PCRA Court’s dismissal on December 2, 2009. On August 17,
2011, [Abney] filed his third pro se Motion for Post-Conviction
Collateral Relief (“Third Petition”). Judge Poserina having retired
from the bench, this case was re-assigned to the undersigned
trial judge. On December 27, 2012, the Court formally dismissed
[Abney’s] Third Petition without a hearing. [Abney] again
appealed the dismissal of his petition, and the Superior Court
dismissed [Abney’s] appeal on June 27, 2013, after [Abney]
failed to file an appellate brief.
Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 1–2.
-2-
J-S60016-16
On November 13, 2015, Abney filed the underlying pro se sentencing
order motion. Abney stated therein:
[On June 13, 2013, Abney] received the attached sentencing
order from the court administrator. The attached “order” is
incomplete and void of the following information thus making the
said order lawful[:]
a. Correct date of the Sentencing
b. Name place [Abney] is to be confined
c. State when the Sentence i[s] to begin
d. State how Sentence is to be served
e. Trial Judge’s Signature
f. Date-Stamp on Order and Clerk[’]s Signature
g. Statute Authorizing Imposition of Sentence
h. Court’s Seal.
Abney’s Sentencing Order Motion, 11/13/2015, at 1. The “attached” order
was a copy of a document printed on June 13, 2013, which is a computer-
generated report that reflects Abney’s sentence.
The Honorable Glenn B. Bronson denied the motion without a hearing
on November 24, 2015. Judge Bronson reasoned:
Trial courts have the inherent authority to correct patent errors
in orders and judgments even after the expiration of the
statutory 30 day time limit for modification of orders set forth in
42 Pa.C. S.A. § 5505. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933
A.2d 57, 64–67 (Pa. 2007). Here, however, there are no
apparent errors in the sentencing orders in [Abney’s] case. As
was then the standard procedure, the sentencing orders were
handwritten on the original Bills of Information filed in this
matter, copies of which are attached to this Opinion as Exhibit A.
-3-
J-S60016-16
There are no clerical errors on the orders. Judge Stout clearly
and succinctly detailed the sentence imposed, correctly dated
the orders, and signed them. Further, the Court's sentencing
order was correctly recorded on a Form DC-300B, which was
signed by the court clerk. The Form DC-300B is attached to this
Opinion as Exhibit B.
[Abney] was sentenced on September 9, 1996, long before the
adoption and use of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Case
Management System (“CPCMS”). The “order” that [Abney]
attached to his motion, while apparently generated by CPCMS,
does contain numerous errors.1 It is not, however, the
sentencing order actually entered by the Court, but an incorrect
report of the sentence, printed decades after defendant was
sentenced. As there are no clerical errors in [Abney’s] actual
sentencing orders, the Court properly denied [Abney’s] motion.
No relief is due.
___________________________________
1 For instance, the date of [Abney’s] sentencing is incorrectly
listed as June 13, 2013, which is also the date on which the
order was printed. Further, the order incorrectly names the
Hon. John W. Herron as judge.
______________________________________
Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 3. This appeal followed.1
Abney argues the trial judge should have conducted a hearing to
determine why the June 13, 2013 document he was provided with by the
court was incomplete. Abney’s Brief at 1-2. We conclude no relief is due.
To the extent that Abney requests the trial court to exercise its
inherent power to correct clerical errors, we adopt Judge Bronson’s sound
discussion, as set forth above, as dispositive of the issue.
____________________________________________
1
The trial court did not order Abney to file a Rule 1925 statement.
-4-
J-S60016-16
Furthermore, if this Court were to construe Abney’s motion as a PCRA
petition,2 we would find that it is patently untimely3 and that no statutory
exception has been pled and proven. Under a PCRA analysis, the petition is
time-barred and, consequently, a PCRA court cannot invoke inherent
jurisdiction to correct orders, judgments and decrees, even if the error is
patent and obvious. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super.
2011), appeal denied, 47 A.3d 845 (Pa. 2012).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/23/2016
____________________________________________
2
We note Abney’s motion refers to a “lawful” order and his appellate brief
requests the following relief: “1. Remand this matter to the lower court for
lawful sentencing under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(1) or alternatively; 2. Order
[Abney’s] immediate release ….” Abney’s Brief, at 7.
3
“In the instant case, Abney’s judgment of sentence became final once this
Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on October 17, 1997, and the
period for filing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
expired on November 17, 1997.” Commonwealth v. Abney, 990 A.2d 34(Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum, at 4) (footnotes omitted),
appeal denied, 998 A.2d 958 (Pa. Super. 2010). “Therefore, in order to
comply with the filing requirements of the PCRA, Abney’s [subsequent] PCRA
petition had to be filed by November 17, 1998.” Id
-5-
J-S60016-16
-6-