Com. v. Hall, W. ( 2020 )

J-S12007-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. HALL :
:
Appellant : No. 2433 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 10, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-15-CR-0002018-2012
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2020
Appellant, William M. Hall, purports to appeal pro se from the order
denying his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We quash the appeal and remand for further
proceedings.
On August 27, 2013, at the above-captioned trial court docket number,
Appellant pled guilty to two counts each of statutory sexual assault and
corruption of minors.1 The trial court sentenced Appellant to serve a term of
incarceration of eleven and one-half to twenty-three months and a
consecutive ten-year term of probation. In addition, Appellant was
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.2 and 6301(a)(1)(ii).
J-S12007-20
determined to be a sexually violent predator. Appellant did not file a direct
appeal. Subsequently, on January 8, 2014, Appellant filed a PCRA petition,
and PCRA counsel was appointed. The PCRA court dismissed the petition on
July 7, 2014. Appellant did not appeal the PCRA court’s determination.
On November 23, 2015, at docket number CP-15-CR-0004596-2015,
Appellant was charged with failure to comply with the SORNA registration
requirements2 related to his prior conviction at the above-captioned docket
number, i.e., CP-15-CR-0002018-2012. Appellant pled guilty to the violation
on May 9, 2016. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct
appeal.
On April 30, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition at docket
number CP-15-CR-0004596-2015. Appellant did not file a concurrent PCRA
petition at the above-captioned docket number. However, on May 17, 2018,
Appellant filed a pro se “memorandum of law in support of [the PCRA petition]”
bearing both trial court docket numbers.
On November 14, 2018, the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to
dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, which contained both trial court docket
numbers. Thereafter, on July 10, 2019, the PCRA court entered an order
dismissing the PCRA petition that also included both trial court docket
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915.1(a)(2).
-2-
J-S12007-20
numbers. Appellant then filed this pro se appeal.3 The PCRA court did not
direct Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement in this matter. On
August 30, 2019, the PCRA court filed its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a).
Appellant presents the following issues:
I. Did the P.C.R.A. [c]ourt err in denying the instant P.C.R.A.
[p]etition declined to correct [Appellant’s] conviction/sentence,
when such was deemed to be illegal and therefore unconstitutional
under the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (July 19, 2017)?
II. Did the P.C.R.A. [c]ourt err in denying the instant P.C.R.A.
[p]etition when [Appellant] raised a legality of sentence claim
which through the Court’s inherent power always retains the
jurisdiction to correct?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Although not raised by the parties, prior to addressing the merits of the
appeal, we sua sponte address the threshold question of the appealability of
the order before us. “The appealability of an order directly implicates the
jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order.” Commonwealth v.
Sabula, 46 A.3d 1287, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Brister, 16 A.3d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011)). As our Supreme Court has
stated, generally “appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals taken
____________________________________________
3 We note that appointed PCRA counsel filed a timely appeal at trial court
docket number CP-15-CR-0004596-2015, which received the Superior Court
docket number of 2431 EDA 2019. That appeal is addressed in a separate
decision.
-3-
J-S12007-20
from a final order.” Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 64 A.3d 602, 608
(Pa. 2013).
In addition, “[A]ny petition [raising a claim cognizable under the PCRA]
filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA
petition.” Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2011).
The PCRA is “the exclusive vehicle for obtaining post-conviction collateral
relief ... regardless of the manner in which the petition is titled.”
Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259, 1261 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Our review of the record reflects that Appellant did not file a PCRA
petition in the above-captioned matter at the same time that he filed his PCRA
petition at CP-15-CR-0004596-2015. However, on May 17, 2018, Appellant
filed a pro se memorandum of law in support of the PCRA petition bearing
both docket numbers, which was docketed at the above-captioned docket
number. On November 14, 2018, the PCRA court issued a notice of intent to
dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, wherein the PCRA court stated that it
was accepting Appellant’s filing at CP-15-CR-0002018-2012 as a second PCRA
petition. Notice of Intent, 11/14/18, at 1 n.1. We agree with the PCRA court
that this filing was, indeed, a second PCRA petition. Jackson, 30 A.3d at 521.
On July 10, 2019, in an order containing both trial court docket
numbers, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. However, in its Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court set forth the following discussion explaining
-4-
J-S12007-20
that it erroneously included the above-captioned trial court docket number in
its order disposing of Appellant’s PCRA petition:
The confusion on Appellant’s part in filing this pro se appeal
to a PCRA Petition that does not exist is due to an error made by
this court. We erroneously added the docket number for the 2012
matter[, CP-15-CR-0002018-2012,] to the caption of our Order
dismissing Appellant’s PCRA Petition in the matter of
Commonwealth v. Hall, CR-0004596-2015 (“the 2015 matter”).
As a result, Appellant’s present attempt to “appeal” the denial of
a PCRA petition in the 2012 matter is a nullity. There is nothing
for the Superior Court to review. Therefore, we respectfully
request that the above captioned appeal be dismissed.
PCRA Court Opinion, 8/30/19, at 1.
Thus, pursuant to the PCRA court’s explanation, the order of July 10,
2019, does not pertain to the docketed case in this matter because the above-
captioned docket number was “erroneously added” to the order. In light of
this clerical error, we are constrained to conclude that the PCRA court failed
to enter a final order addressing Appellant’s second PCRA petition in this case.
Therefore, that matter is still pending before the PCRA court.
Hence, we quash the instant appeal as having been taken from a non-
existent order. Furthermore, we remand this matter to the PCRA court for a
determination regarding Appellant’s second PCRA petition filed at the above-
captioned docket number.
Appeal quashed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
-5-
J-S12007-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2020
-6-