Com. v. Keeling, M. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-S59023-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    MICHAEL E. KEELING
    Appellant                  No. 2889 EDA 2015
    Appeal from the PCRA Order August 18, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1111571-1994
    CP-51-CR-1111581-1994
    CP-51-CR-1111591-1994
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                          FILED AUGUST 19, 2016
    Appellant, Michael Keeling, appeals pro se from the order entered on
    August 18, 2015, dismissing his fourth petition filed pursuant to the Post
    Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
    The PCRA court summarized the relevant factual background and
    procedural history of this case as follows:
    On November 18, 1994, [p]olice [o]fficers Joseph Osborne and
    Herbert Nelson detained [Appellant] on 5th Street in Philadelphia
    after identifying him through composite sketches as a suspected
    carjacker. After gathering additional information, the officers
    decided to bring him into headquarters for further questioning.
    As they were preparing for transport, [Appellant] grabbed a
    hidden revolver from inside his pants and fired at the officers.
    The officers retreated behind their police car as he fired more
    shots. Satisfied that he was beyond the reach of the officers,
    [Appellant] ran away.
    *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S59023-16
    As he was running, [Appellant] spotted a station wagon at a
    stoplight, pointed the revolver at [the] driver [], and ordered
    him to exit the vehicle. [Appellant] then drove off, with the
    officers in pursuit. During the chase[, Appellant] lost control of
    the vehicle and hit a pole. He jumped out of the car and began
    to run but was apprehended several blocks away. His gun was
    found nearby.
    Using this evidence, the jury convicted [Appellant] of two counts
    of aggravated assault,[1] robbery,[2] robbery of a motor
    vehicle,[3] theft,[4] and [carrying a firearm without a license.5
    The trial c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] to an aggregate term of
    imprisonment of 32½ to 65 years. [Appellant] appealed [and
    this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Our] Supreme
    Court denied [allowance of appeal] on December 24, 1996.
    PCRA Court Opinion, 10/13/15, at 1-2.
    Thereafter, on September 12, 1997, [Appellant] filed a pro se PCRA
    petition. After counsel was appointed, the PCRA court dismissed the petition
    and this Court affirmed. Appellant filed a second PCRA petition on July 8,
    2005 which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely.         Appellant also filed a
    third PCRA petition which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely. This Court
    affirmed the dismissal and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
    ____________________________________________
    1
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702.
    2
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701.
    3
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3702.
    4
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921.
    5
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106.
    -2-
    J-S59023-16
    On November 19, 2014, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA
    petition, his fourth.       Thereafter, Appellant filed an amended petition. On
    August 6, 2015, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the
    petition without an evidentiary hearing.         See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.   Appellant
    filed a response to the Rule 907 notice. On August 18, 2015, the PCRA court
    dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing.         This timely appeal
    followed.6
    Appellant presents four issues for our review:
    1. Did the [PCRA] court err by its failure to grant [Appellant’s]
    motion for leave to amend [his PCRA petition pursuant to] 42
    Pa.[C.S.A.] § 9545(b)(1) into a petition for writ of habeas corpus
    relief [pursuant to] 42 Pa.[C.S.A.] § 6502(a)?
    2. Did the [PCRA] court err by its failure to grant a writ of habeas
    corpus relief . . . ?
    3. Did the [PCRA] court err [in] its denial [of] independent ballistic
    identification testing . . . ?
    4. Did the [PCRA] court err by failing to grant [an] evidentiary
    hearing where[,] for reasons outside [Appellant’s] own personal
    control[,] he has never been afforded a probable cause hearing
    to determine whether police had sufficient probable cause to
    stop and arrest [him] on November 18, 1994?
    Appellant’s Brief at ii.7
    ____________________________________________
    6
    Appellant filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
    (“concise statement”) contemporaneously with his notice of appeal. See
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The PCRA court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on
    October 13, 2015. All issues raised on appeal were included in Appellant’s
    concise statement.
    7
    We have re-numbered the issues for ease of disposition.
    -3-
    J-S59023-16
    In his first and second issues, Appellant argues that the PCRA court
    should have treated his filing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
    Appellant alleges a conflict of interest existed between his trial counsel and
    direct appeal counsel because both were employed by the Defender
    Association of Philadelphia. He further argues this constitutes a breakdown
    of the judicial system and entitles him to habeas corpus relief because the
    PCRA is an inadequate remedy. Appellant’s argument is misguided.
    “The [PCRA is] the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and
    encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same
    purpose . . . including habeas corpus and coram nobis.”           42 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 9542.   A petition for writ of habeas corpus is only appropriate where a
    petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under the PCRA. See Commonwealth
    v. Descardes, 
    136 A.3d 493
    , 499 (Pa. 2016).         A claim that there was a
    conflict of interest is cognizable under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v.
    Townsend, 
    850 A.2d 741
    , 743 (Pa. Super. 2004). Accordingly, the PCRA
    court correctly treated Appellant’s filing as a PCRA petition and not a petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus.
    “Crucial to the determination of any PCRA appeal is the timeliness of
    the underlying petition. Thus, we must first determine whether the instant
    PCRA petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 
    35 A.3d 766
    ,
    768 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 
    53 A.3d 757
     (Pa. 2012).               The
    timeliness requirement for PCRA petitions “is mandatory and jurisdictional in
    -4-
    J-S59023-16
    nature, and the court may not ignore it in order to reach the merits of the
    petition.”   Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 
    79 A.3d 649
    , 651 (Pa. Super.
    2013) (citation omitted). “The question of whether a petition is timely raises
    a question of law. Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard
    of review is de novo and our scope of review plenary.” Commonwealth v.
    Taylor, 
    65 A.3d 462
    , 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).
    A PCRA petition is timely if it is “filed within one year of the date the
    judgment [of sentence] becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).         “[A]
    judgment [of sentence] becomes 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). Appellant’s judgment of sentence
    became final on March 24, 1997, 90 days after our Supreme Court denied
    allowance of appeal. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13 (petition for a writ of certiorari
    must be filed within 90 days). Appellant’s present petition, his fourth, was
    filed on or about November 19, 2014.        Thus, the petition was patently
    untimely.
    An untimely PCRA petition may be considered if one of the following
    three exceptions applies:
    (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;
    -5-
    J-S59023-16
    (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).    If an exception applies, a PCRA petition
    may be considered if it is filed “within 60 days of the date the claim could
    have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
    As noted above, a petitioner must plead and prove the existence of a
    timeliness exception in order for the PCRA court to have jurisdiction over an
    untimely petition. Failure to plead the applicability of a timeliness exception
    in the PCRA petition renders the PCRA court without jurisdiction to consider
    the merits of the petition. See Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 
    923 A.2d 466
    , 468-469 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 
    934 A.2d 72
     (Pa. 2007). In
    this case, Appellant’s PCRA petition did not allege that he satisfied one of the
    PCRA’s timeliness exceptions. Accordingly, he failed to plead and prove the
    applicability of a timeliness exception and the PCRA court properly held that
    it lacked jurisdiction over his untimely petition.
    Order affirmed.
    -6-
    J-S59023-16
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/19/2016
    -7-