Opinion
J-S23042-16 No. 2792 EDA 2015
05-23-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TROY TAQUELL ALVIN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 20, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001323-2003 BEFORE: PANELLA, OTT, and FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Troy Taquell Alvin, appeals from the order dismissing his fifth Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition as untimely, after an evidentiary hearing. He contends that his 2014 discovery of his personal state identification card, issued in November 2001, fulfills the after-discovered evidence requirement and thus overcomes the timeliness bar. We affirm.
We adopt the PCRA court's facts and procedural history. PCRA Ct. Op., 7/20/15, at 1-4. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant raises the following issues:
Appellant timely filed his fifth PCRA petition after discovering his appearance on his state-issued non-driver's license identification card.Appellant's Brief at 4.
Appellant's state-issued non-driver's license identification card was after-discovered evidence that could not have been obtained before the conclusion of the trial by reasonable diligence; was not merely corroborative or cumulative; would not have been used solely for purposes of impeachment; and was of such a nature and character that a different outcome would have been likely had the evidence been introduced.
Appellant contends he discovered his 2001 state-issued identification card in February 2014, and thus timely filed the instant fifth PCRA petition. on February 26, 2014. He acknowledges he possessed the card prior to trial "but was unaware of his exact appearance as depicted" on the card. Id. at 11. Appellant claims he could not obtain a copy of the card until recently, when he could "verify that his photograph on the state ID card [issued in November 2001] accurately reflected his appearance at the time of the shooting" in March 2002. Id. at 11-12. We hold Appellant is due no relief.
Appellant's PCRA petition is dated February 26, 2014; the court docketed it on March 3, 2014. See generally Commonwealth v. Wilson , 911 A.2d 942, 944 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discussing prisoner mailbox rule).
Before addressing the merits of Appellant's claims, we examine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Fahy , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). "Our standard of review of a PCRA court's dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Wilson , 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted). A PCRA petition "must normally be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final . . . unless one of the exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies and the petition is filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented." Commonwealth v. Copenhefer , 941 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (citations and footnote omitted).
Instantly, Appellant's judgment of sentence became final on July 3, 2006, ninety days after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal. Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition on February 26, 2014, almost eight years later. Thus, this Court must discern whether the PCRA court erred by holding Appellant did not plead and prove one of the three timeliness exceptions. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii); Copenhefer , 941 A.2d at 648.
"[S]ubsection (b)(1)(ii) does not require the petitioner to allege and prove a claim of 'after-discovered evidence.' Rather, it simply requires petitioner to allege and prove that there were 'facts' that were 'unknown' to him and that he exercised 'due diligence.'" Commonwealth v. Bennett , 930 A.2d 1264, 1270 (Pa. 2007) (footnote omitted). "Due diligence requires that [the defendant] take . . . steps to protect his own interests." Commonwealth v. Carr , 768 A.2d 1164, 1168 (Pa. Super. 2001). "If the petitioner alleges and proves these two components, then the PCRA court has jurisdiction over the claim under this subsection." Bennett , 930 A.2d at 1272. As set forth by our Supreme Court:
To warrant relief, after-discovered evidence must meet a four-prong test: (1) the evidence could not have been obtained before the conclusion of the trial by reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence will not be used solely for purposes of impeachment; and (4) the evidence is of such a nature and character that a different outcome is likely.Commonwealth v. Dennis , 715 A.2d 404, 415 (Pa. 1998).
After careful review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the well-reasoned opinion by the Honorable Emil Giordano. we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion. See PCRA Ct. Op. at 6-11 (holding Appellant failed to (1) plead governmental interference prevented him from obtaining a copy of his state identification card earlier; (2) establish his due diligence to procure the card prior to trial; and (3) establish that the outcome of the trial would have been different if his November 2001 card was introduced because the murder occurred in March 2002). Accordingly, we agree with the PCRA court's determination that Appellant did not properly invoke any one of the three timeliness exceptions. See Copenhefer , 941 A.2d at 648; Fahy , 737 A.2d at 223. Thus, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction. See Fahy , 737 A.2d at 223. Having discerned no error of law, we affirm the order below. See Wilson , 824 A.2d at 333.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/23/2016
Image materials not available for display.