Com. v. Brown, M. ( 2016 )

J-S70036-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
MICHAEL S. BROWN, :
:
Appellant : No. 87 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 4, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Criminal Division, No(s): CP-39-CR-0002452-2005,
CP-39-CR-0003709-2004
BEFORE: OLSON, OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2016
Michael S. Brown (“Brown”) appeals from the Order dismissing his
second Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history:
In April and May of 2005, [Brown] and his girlfriend committed
several armed robberies in Lehigh and Northampton Counties.
All of the cases were prosecuted in Lehigh County. In case CP-
39-CR-2452-2005, [Brown] pled guilty to four counts of robbery
and five counts of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. In
case CP-39-CR-3709-2004, [Brown] pled guilty to a single count
of bad checks …. On December 5, 2005, the Honorable William
H. Platt, now retired from the Lehigh County Court of Common
Pleas, sentenced [Brown] to an aggregate confinement term of
not less than eighteen years to not more than forty-eight years
for the two cases.
[Brown] appealed his robbery sentences. [This Court affirmed
the judgment of sentence on January 5, 2007. See
Commonwealth v. Brown, 919 A.2d 968 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(unpublished memorandum).]
J-S70036-16
On January 9, 2008, [Brown] filed a pro se [P]etition for PCRA
relief in both cases. Judge Platt denied that [P]etition on June
26, 2008. [This Court affirmed the denial, and the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania denied Brown’s Petition for allowance of
appeal. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 991 A.2d 354 (Pa.
Super. 2010), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 287 (Pa. 2011).]
PCRA Court Opinion, 12/4/15, at 1-2.
On December 19, 2014, Brown, through counsel, filed the instant
PCRA Petition. Thereafter, Brown filed an Amended PCRA Petition.
Following a hearing, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition. Brown filed a
timely Notice of Appeal.
On appeal, Brown raises the following questions for our review:
1. The PCRA court held that [Brown’s] claim was untimely and
unqualified for substantive review under the “[newly]-
discovered evidence” exception to the jurisdictional time-bar.
Did the court err in concluding that [Brown] had prior
knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim based on one
15-minute videoconference with his public defender moments
before his sentencing?
2. The PCRA court also found that [Brown] did not assert a
viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Did the
court err in light of (a) the sentencing judge’s known bias
against mitigation based on drug addiction[,] (b) the
undeniably harsh sentence imposed[,] and (c) the
indisputable fact that the missing records would have
supported [Brown’s] claims and contradicted the stated
rationale for his sentence?
Brief for Appellant at 4.
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA
in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA
level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court
and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s
ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal
error.
-2-
J-S70036-16
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
omitted).
Initially, under the PCRA, any PCRA petition, “including a second or
subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment
becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis added). The PCRA’s
timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and a court may not
address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely
filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).
Here, Brown’s judgment of sentence became final on February 5,
2007, after the thirty-day period to seek review with the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania expired. See Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 5 (Pa.
Super. 2014). Thus, Brown had until February 5, 2008, to file a timely PCRA
petition. Because Brown did not file the instant PCRA Petition until
December 19, 2014, his Petition is facially untimely.
However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition if the
appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth
under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any PCRA petition invoking one of
these exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at
1094.
-3-
J-S70036-16
Brown invokes the newly-discovered facts exception at 9545(b)(1)(ii),1
and argues that his counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to
include information about his drug addiction and treatment in the pre-
sentence investigation report (“PSI”). Brief for Appellant at 15, 17-18.
Brown asserts that sentencing counsel’s testimony at the hearing on his
Petition supported his assertion that he only became aware of the new facts
upon PCRA counsel’s discovery, and thus, Brown exercised due diligence.
Id. at 19-22. Brown claims that he established that but for sentencing
counsel’s ineffectiveness, his sentence would have been different. Id. at 25-
32. Brown further contends that the missing treatment records and
incomplete drug and alcohol evaluation were newly-discovered facts, and
that he had not seen the PSI or discussed the missing information with
counsel. Id. at 18-19, 22-24.
Initially, Brown’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not
implicate the newly-discovered facts exception, and will not save an
otherwise untimely petition from the application of the time restrictions of
the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 349 (Pa.
1
To prove the newly-discovered facts exception, “the petitioner must
establish that: 1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were
unknown and 2) could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due
diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491, 500 (Pa. Super.
2016) (citation omitted).
-4-
J-S70036-16
2013); Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa.
2000).2
Moreover, Brown did not exercise due diligence in discovering the
missing treatment records and presenting his claim. Indeed, Brown knew at
the time of sentencing, in December 2005, of the missing records and
incomplete drug and alcohol evaluation. See N.T., 11/23/15, at 42-46; see
also PCRA Court Opinion, 12/4/15, at 4-5. Thus, because Brown failed to
raise such a claim until December 2014, he failed to exercise due diligence
and did not properly invoke the newly-discovered facts exception. See
Edmiston, 65 A.3d at 349 (stating that a petitioner did not exercise due
diligence where he was aware of the factual basis of his claim for over fifteen
years prior to raising the claim); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306,
311–12 (Pa. 2008) (concluding that appellant did not establish due diligence
in invoking the newly-discovered facts exception where he was aware of the
evidence for years prior to raising the claim).3
Order affirmed.
2
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has determined that a PCRA
petitioner’s discovery that his counsel has abandoned him (by failing to file a
requested appeal from an order denying his timely first PCRA petition, a
court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement, or an appellate brief)
can permit the petitioner to circumvent the PCRA time bar under the newly-
discovered facts exception. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d
1264, 1273 (Pa. 2007). In the instant case, Brown was not deprived of his
right to a counseled first PCRA appeal, and thus, Bennett is inapplicable.
3
The PCRA court also notes that, at sentencing, Judge Platt was aware of
Brown’s substance abuse history based upon information in the PSI and
testimony presented at sentencing. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/4/15, at 6.
-5-
J-S70036-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/15/2016
-6-