Com. v. Bestman, J. ( 2014 )

J. S28009/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JOSEPH BESTMAN, : No. 3399 EDA 2012
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order, November 7, 2012,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0002168-2009
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JOSEPH BESTMAN, : No. 3400 EDA 2012
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order, November 7, 2012,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0001313-2009
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS AND PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2014
Joseph Bestman appeals from the order of November 7, 2012, denying
his PCRA1 petition as untimely filed. We affirm.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J. S28009/14
On July 16, 2009, appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to one
count each of retail theft, obstruction of a government function, and
incarceration for resisting arrest, with credit for time served and immediate
parole. (Notes of testimony, 7/16/09 at 11.) On the charge of obstruction
of a government function, appellant received a sentence of one year of
probation to run concurrently with the sentence on resisting arrest. (Id. at
12.) On retail theft, appellant received a sentence of one year of probation
to run consecutively to the sentence on resisting arrest; therefore,
by one year of probation. (Id.)
Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or take a direct appeal.
otion to re-open sentence
base
counsel failed to advise appellant, a Liberian national, of the immigration
PCRA petition and counsel was appointed. An amended petition was filed on
January 4, 1992, and was a juvenile at the time of his guilty plea.
Therefore, appellant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to accept his
plea.
-2-
J. S28009/14
A hearing was held on August 11, 2011, at which both trial counsel,
denied on November 7, 2012.2 This timely appeal followed. Appellant has
complied with Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the PCRA court has
filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
of the 1995 amendments to the PCRA; therefore, the
jurisdictional time limits established by those
amendments govern this case. Commonwealth v.
Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214, 217-18 (1999). A
PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent one,
must be filed within one year of the date the
unless he pleads and proves one of the three
exceptions outlined in 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9545(b)(1).[Footnote 2] Commonwealth v.
Howard, 567 Pa. 481, 788 A.2d 351, 354 (2002). A
judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct
review by this Court or the United States Supreme
Court, or at the expiration of the time for seeking
such review. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); Howard, at
jurisdictional; therefore, a court may not address the
merits of the issues raised if the petition was not
timely filed. Commonwealth v. Abu Jamal, 574
Pa. 724, 833 A.2d 719, 723 24 (2003);
Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1, 753 A.2d
201, 203 (2000). The timeliness requirements apply
to all PCRA petitions, regardless of the nature of the
individual claims raised therein. Murray, at 203.
The PCRA squarely places upon the petitioner the
burden of proving an untimely petition fits within one
of the three exceptions. See Commonwealth v.
Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611, 752 A.2d 868, 871 (2002)
2
The hearing was held before the Honorable Charles C. Keeler, who also
ed
from the bench and the matter was reassigned to the Honorable Gregory M.
Mallon.
-3-
J. S28009/14
further requires a petition invoking one of these
§ 9545(b)(2). On appeal from the denial of PCRA
PCRA court are supported by the record and free of
Abu Jamal, at 723.
[Footnote 2] These exceptions are:
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; (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
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16-17 (Pa. 2012).
day,
August 17, 2009, when the time for filing a direct appeal expired.3
Therefore, appellant had until August 17, 2010 to file a timely PCRA petition.
3
The actual 30th day fell on Saturday, August 15, 2009; therefore, appellant
had until the following Monday to file an appeal notice. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908
(excluding weekends and holidays from the computation of time).
-4-
J. S28009/14
Initially, we note that appellant was sentenced on July 16, 2009, to
3
it appears that appellant is no longer serving his sentence. 4 If so, then he is
ineligible for PCRA relief. Our supreme court has held that, to be eligible for
§ 9543(a)(1)(i). As soon as his sentence is completed, the petitioner
becomes ineligible for relief, regardless of whether he was serving his
sentence when he filed the petition. Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d
718, 720 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Matin, 832 A.2d 1141, 1143
(Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 843 A.2d 1237 (Pa. 2004). In addition,
this court determined in Commonwealth v. Fisher, 703 A.2d 714
(Pa.Super. 1997), that the PCRA precludes relief for those petitioners whose
sentences have expired, regardless of the collateral consequences of their
sentence. Id. at 716 (citations omitted).
At
applies to the statutory one-year time bar. Appellant attempted to invoke
the after-recognized constitutional right exception, relying on Padilla v.
4
See
out that on case 1313 of 2009 [appellant] is no longer serving a sentence.
, which was
July 16, 2009; it was imposed on July 16, 2009. That 22 month [sic]
sentence expired in June of 2011. So for that additional reason [appellant]
-5-
J. S28009/14
Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), in which the United States Supreme Court
held that counsel must inform his client whether his plea carries a risk of
deportation. However, this court determined in Commonwealth v. Garcia,
23 A.3d 1059 (Pa.Super. 2011), that Padilla did not recognize a new
review as an exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA.5
Appellant also claims the trial court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction because he was a juvenile at the time of his plea. Appellant
argues that Attorney Consadene should have filed a petition to transfer his
case to juvenile court. According to appellant, his sentence is a
Appellant is correct that generally, subject matter jurisdiction is
non-waivable; however, the issue would still have to be raised in a timely
PCRA petition.
The timeliness requirements of the PCRA do not vary
alleged therein . . . . To the contrary, . . . the
s timeliness requirements . . . are intended to
apply to all PCRA petitions, regardless of the nature
Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1, 753 A.2d
201, 202-
requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional in
nature, no court may properly disregard or alter
5
We note that Attorney Consadene testified at the PCRA hearing that
appellant never told him he was a Liberian national, and he assumed he was
a United States citizen. (Notes of testimony, 8/11/11 at 12.) The issue
never came up, and Attorney Consadene had no reason to inform appellant
of the immigration consequences of his plea. (Id.)
-6-
J. S28009/14
them in order to reach the merits of the claims
raised in a PCRA petition that is filed in an untimely
Id. at 203. Howard that a
sentence was illegal, an issue deemed incapable of being waived, are not
Commonwealth v. Grafton,
928 A.2d 1112, 1114 (Pa.Super. 2007), citing Fahy, supra;
Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987 (Pa.Super. 2004). Certainly, we
-21.)
Appellant has also filed a petition for remand, which this court denied
without prejudice to re-raise the issue in his appellate brief. Appellant
claims he has after-discovered evidence proving that he was born on
January 4, 1992, including a Pennsylvania non-driver identification card.
This is not after-discovered evidence for PCRA purposes where
appellant was certainly aware of his birthdate at the time of his plea. In
fact, appellant testified at the PCRA hearing that he purposely lied to the
court about his age because he did not want his mother to know about his
arrest. (Notes of testimony, 8/11/11 at 35.) Appellant told the court that
he was 20 years old. (Id.) Attorney Consadene testified that the record
indicated appellant was born on October 19, 1988, and he had no reason to
think that date was incorrect. (Id. at 13, 21-22.) Attorney Consadene
-7-
J. S28009/14
would have had no basis for filing a petition to transfer the case to juvenile
court. (Id.)
Appellant also argues that, in the alternative, he should be allowed to
pursue the matter in a state habeas corpus
23-24.) Appellant states that the remedy of habeas corpus is available for
the rare instances where the PCRA offers no remedy. (Id. at 23.)
[T]he PCRA is the exclusive vehicle for obtaining
post-conviction collateral relief. Commonwealth v.
Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611, 614 n. 3, 752 A.2d 868,
869-70 n. 3 (2000). This is true regardless of the
manner in which the petition is titled.
Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50, 52 n. 1
(Pa.Super.2000). Indeed, the PCRA statute
specifically provides for such treatment:
The action established in this subchapter
shall be the sole means of obtaining
collateral relief and encompasses all
other common law and statutory
remedies for the same purpose that exist
when this subchapter takes effect,
including habeas corpus and coram
nobis.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. Simply because the merits of
the PCRA petition cannot be considered due to
previous litigation, waiver, or an untimely filing,
there is no alternative basis for relief outside the
framework of the PCRA. See generally,
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 332, 737
A.2d 214, 223-224 (1999) (citing Commonwealth
v. Chester, 557 Pa. 358, 733 A.2d 1242 (1999)).
Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259, 1261 (Pa.Super. 2001).
Unless the PCRA could not provide for a potential
remedy, the PCRA statute subsumes the writ of
habeas corpus. Fahy, supra at 223-224;
-8-
J. S28009/14
Commonwealth v. Chester, 557 Pa. 358, 733 A.2d
1242 (1999). Issues that are cognizable under the
PCRA must be raised in a timely PCRA petition and
cannot be raised in a habeas corpus petition. See
Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722
A.2d 638 (1998); see also Commonwealth v.
Deaner, 779 A.2d 578 (Pa.Super.2001) (a collateral
petition that raises an issue that the PCRA statute
could remedy is to be considered a PCRA petition).
Phrased differently, a defendant cannot escape the
PCRA time-bar by titling his petition or motion as a
writ of habeas corpus.
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465-466 (Pa.Super. 2013).
to
advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea, and for failure to
move to have the case transferred to juvenile court, are certainly cognizable
by bringing the identical claims in a habeas petition. Simply because
-bar
applies, and he is left without a remedy under the PCRA, does not mean that
his claims are reviewable pursuant to habeas corpus.6 See
Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407, 412 (Pa.Super. 2006),
appeal denied habeas corpus has
been subsumed into the PCRA for claims that are cognizable under the Act
6
Ironically, if appellant had been adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, he
would likely be unable to bring a claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness for
failing to warn him of the immigration consequences of his plea. The PCRA
does not apply to juveniles, and habeas corpus is limited to those juveniles
who are presently detained. In re B.S., 831 A.2d 151, 154 (Pa.Super.
2003).
-9-
J. S28009/14
and is not available merely because an otherwise cognizable claim is
jurisdictionally time- Fahy, supra.
petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/12/2014
- 10 -