Com. v. Beckett, H. ( 2015 )

J-S78034-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
HARRY BECKETT, :
:
Appellant : No. 521 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered on February 11, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-22-CR-0003393-1991
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2015
Harry Beckett (“Beckett”), pro se, appeals from the Order dismissing
his pro se “Motion Letter” (hereinafter referred to as “Motion for relief”).1
We affirm.
In November 1992, a jury found Beckett guilty of first-degree murder
and criminal conspiracy, after which the trial court sentenced him to life in
prison. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, after which the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Beckett, 654 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 1994) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 655 A.2d 982 (Pa. 1995).
1
As the Court of Common Pleas explains in its Statement in Lieu of Rule
1925(a) Opinion (hereinafter “Statement in Lieu of Opinion”), “although
[Beckett’s Motion for relief is] captioned as a Motion and request[s] relief, [it
is] composed [of two] letters[, which] primarily ask [the] Judge to seek
information from [Beckett’s] own physician.” Statement in Lieu of Opinion,
5/12/14, at 1.
J-S78034-14
In the following years, Beckett filed three separate Petitions for
collateral relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),2 all of which
were dismissed, and this Court affirmed each dismissal. See
Commonwealth v. Beckett, 60 A.3d 585 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 67 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2013); Commonwealth
v. Beckett, 6 A.3d 548 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum),
appeal denied, 17 A.3d 920 (Pa. 2011); Commonwealth v. Beckett, 806
A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. 2002) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied,
820 A.2d 702 (Pa. 2003).3
In January 2014, Beckett filed the Motion for relief, in the form of two
separate letters sent directly to the PCRA court judge. By an Order entered
on February 11, 2014, the PCRA court dismissed the Motion for relief, ruling
that it did not set forth any grounds upon which the PCRA court could
provide relief.
Beckett timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal. In response, the PCRA
court issued its Statement in Lieu of Opinion, opining that the court properly
dismissed the Motion for relief because “[Beckett] has exhausted all of his
post-trial remedies[,] and the [Motion for relief does] not allege [] any of the
exceptions [to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar] for granting consideration
2
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
3
This Court, in its Memorandum filed on August 29, 2012, thoroughly set
forth the procedural history, including Beckett’s habeas corpus action filed in
federal court. See Beckett, 60 A.3d 585 (unpublished memorandum at 1-
4).
-2-
J-S78034-14
under the P[CRA.]” Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 5/12/14, at 1; see also
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii) (setting forth the PCRA’s three exceptions).
On appeal, Beckett presents the following issues for our review, which
we have modified slightly for clarity:
1. [Whether this case must be] remand[ed] to [the]
Honorable [] William T. Tully, to author a PCRA Opinion
on both [Beckett’s] timely filed [] PCRA [Petition,] and
[Pa.R.Crim.P.] 907 Objection[]s, that [were] not
considered[,4 and whether this amounts to] an abuse of
discretion …[?]
2. [Whether a] remand [] allows [the] PCRA court to
exercise invested 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)[5] “double
differential review”[] by converting [the] present PCRA
[Petition,] and [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 907 Objection[]s[,] into a
state habeas corpus [action] to address a freestanding
claim of “actual innocence[,]” relief not available within
the framework of the PCRA …[?]
4
As we discuss below, the alleged PCRA Petition to which Beckett refers is
not contained in the certified record.
5
Section 2254(b) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not
be granted unless it appears that—
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; or
(B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective
process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
-3-
J-S78034-14
Brief for Appellant at 5 (capitalization, emphasis, footnotes, and some
quotation marks omitted; footnotes added).6
Preliminarily, we observe that Beckett’s Motion for relief is properly
treated as a Petition filed pursuant to the PCRA.7 See Commonwealth v.
Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465-66 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that any petition
filed after an appellant’s judgment of sentence becomes final should be
treated as a PCRA petition). Therefore, we consider Beckett’s claims on
appeal under the rubric of the PCRA.
The PCRA provides that “[a]ny [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). Beckett’s judgment
of sentence became final in May 1995. Beckett did not file the instant PCRA
Petition/Motion for relief until January 2014, and, therefore, it is facially
untimely.
Accordingly, Beckett’s PCRA Petition/Motion for relief is time-barred
unless he has pled and proven one of the three exceptions to the PCRA’s
time limitation set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). These exceptions
provide that a PCRA petition may be filed within sixty days from the date the
6
Beckett’s Argument section is largely in narrative form, and like his
Statement of Questions Presented, difficult to understand. See Brief for
Appellant at 6-23.
7
Accordingly, we will hereinafter refer to the Motion for relief as the “PCRA
Petition/Motion for relief.”
-4-
J-S78034-14
claim could have been presented, when the petition alleges, and the
petitioner proves, the following:
(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 law of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution 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 has been held by the court to apply
retroactively.
Id.; see also id. § 9545(b)(2).
In the PCRA Petition/Motion for relief, Beckett does not allege that the
delay in filing his Petition was due to interference by government officials; or
that the facts underlying his Petition were unknown to him and could not
have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or that the right he
has asserted is a retroactive constitutional right. See Commonwealth v.
Crews, 863 A.2d 498, 501 (Pa. 2004) (stating that “it is the petitioner’s
burden to plead in the petition and prove that one of the exceptions applies.”
(citation omitted, emphasis in original)). Therefore, Beckett’s PCRA
Petition/Motion for relief is time-barred, and neither this Court nor the PCRA
court has jurisdiction to address Beckett’s claims. See Commonwealth v.
Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (stating that “[i]f a PCRA petition is
untimely, neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction over the
-5-
J-S78034-14
petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to
address the substantive claims.” (citation omitted)).
In so ruling, we observe that, in Beckett’s pro se Notice of Appeal, he
asserts that he filed the Motion for relief in connection with his alleged filing
of a fourth pro se PCRA Petition, which, Beckett asserts, “has been
misplaced by the [PCRA] court because [Beckett] has not received an order
denying the PCRA []Petition[.]” Notice of Appeal, 3/17/14, at 1 (emphasis
omitted). However, our review of the certified record, and the PCRA court’s
docket, reveals no such PCRA Petition; therefore, we may not consider the
alleged PCRA Petition. See Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 758 A.2d
1155, 1159 (Pa. 2000) (observing that an appellate court may consider only
matters certified in the record on appeal).
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the PCRA court properly
dismissed Beckett’s PCRA Petition/Motion for relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/13/2015
-6-