Opinion
J-S40013-19 No. 1740 WDA 2018
10-01-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. THOMAS PAUL HAGGIE, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-42-CR-0000553-2009 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MCLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Thomas Paul Haggie, appeals pro se from the trial court's November 15, 2018 order denying, as untimely, his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We need not discuss the facts of Appellant's underlying convictions for purposes of this appeal. The PCRA court briefly summarized the procedural history of his case, as follows:
[Appellant] was charged with Criminal Homicide,1 Criminal Homicide of Unborn Child,2 Criminal Conspiracy-Homicide,3 and Criminal Conspiracy-Homicide of Unborn Child.4 On December 8, 2010, [Appellant] knowingly and voluntarily entered into a guilty plea agreement and pled guilty to Murder of the First Degree (Section 2502(a)) and Murder of the First Degree of an Unborn Child (Section 2604(a)). The guilty plea agreement was signed by [Appellant] and his attorneys and was accompanied by a docketed Written Guilty Plea Colloquy that was also signed by
[Appellant] and his counsel. Subsequently, on January 13, 2011, [Appellant] was sentenced to two life sentences without the possibility of parole.
1 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2501(a)[.]
2 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2603(a)[.]
3 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 903(a) and §2501(a)[.]
4 18 Pa.C.S.[] §903(a) and §2603(a)[.]
PCRA Court Opinion, 4/4/19.
On October 24, 2018, [] Appellant ... filed a Pro Se [PCRA] Petition.... This is his second PCRA [petition]. The court, citing to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), dismissed the second PCRA Petition as untimely. On December 6, 2018, [Appellant] filed a [timely, pro se] Notice of Appeal.
The PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. After the court granted Appellant an extension of time to file his concise statement, Appellant timely did so on April 1, 2019. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 4, 2019.
Appellant presents the following, verbatim language in his "Statement of the Question Presented" portion of his appellate brief:
A. Was Appellant denied the effective assistance of counsel where trial counsel failed to object to theAppellant's Brief at 6 (unnumbered).
Did the court err in ruling against Appeallant mental state prevented him from forming the specific intent necessary for a first-degree murder conviction
Yes
B. Did the court err in ruling against commission of criminal acts and pursuit of diminished capacity mental illness or lack of premeditation defenses
Yes
We also quote, verbatim, the entirety of Appellant's "Argument" section:
The failure of trial counsel to uphold Appellant right make his own choices about the proper way to protect his own liberty by not investigation of wetness or crime snece. And by not investigation on the effect on the medication that Appellant was takeId . at 9 (unnumbered).
Clearly, Appellant's argument is insufficient to allow us to meaningfully review the ineffectiveness claim he seemingly attempts to present on appeal. Additionally, Appellant's pro se petition is patently untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1), and he has failed to demonstrate the applicability of any of the timeliness exceptions set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Therefore, we discern no error in the PCRA court's dismissing his petition.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/1/2019