Opinion
J. S36027/16 No. 2168 MDA 2015
06-06-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LENNE LARUE, III Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 29, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County
Criminal Division No(s): CP-28-CR-0001614-2011 BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Lenne LaRue, III, appeals from the order entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his Petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, as untimely. We affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's Opinion.
The PCRA court's Rule 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history in this case and we adopt its recitation for purposes of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 1/19/16, at 1-2. While we will not go into exhaustive detail here, some of the relevant facts are as follows.
On January 24, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver, and the Honorable Douglas Herman sentenced Appellant to time served to twenty-three months of incarceration on the first count, followed by a consecutive term of twelve months of probation on the second count. Thereafter, Appellant violated his parole, and on April 5, 2013, Judge Herman sentenced Appellant to serve the balance of his originally imposed sentence. Appellant filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence, which Judge Herman denied on March 28, 2012. Appellant did not appeal. Id. at 5.
On April 6, 2015, Defendant filed a PCRA Petition and a Memorandum of Law in Support, which the PCRA court ultimately dismissed as untimely.
Appellant timely appealed, raising the following two issues:
1. Was the trial court without jurisdiction to accept any plea of guilty or conduct any prosecutorial proceedings after a violation of the interstate agreement on detainers had occurred?Appellant's Brief at 5.
2. Is the application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 Time to File, unconstitutional as applied to the Appellant, in that it violates the United States Constitution Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, relating to "Obligation of Contracts"?
"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). Before addressing the merits of Appellant's claims, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Hackett , 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite).
Under the PCRA, a PCRA petition "shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]" 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). A Judgment of Sentence becomes final "at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or the expiration of time for seeking the review." 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA's timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).
Here, because Appellant filed the instant Petition three years after his Judgment of Sentence became final after pleading guilty, it is facially untimely under the PCRA.
Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of the three exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), which provides the following:
(b) Time for filing petition.
(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(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 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 held by that court to apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)-(2). See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Lark , 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000) (applying sixty-day timeframe after reviewing specific facts that demonstrated the claim was timely raised).
(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.
Here, Appellant attempts to circumvent the timeliness requirement with two arguments: (i) that the PCRA's one-year limit is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the requirements of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, and (ii) that he may invoke the after-discovered-evidence exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) because his previously undiagnosed and untreated Graves' disease rendered him mentally incompetent and unable to assert the factual basis for the issues now raised.
The Honorable Carol L. Van Horn has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellant's claims on appeal. After a careful review of the parties' arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion. See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 1/19/16, at 2-9 (holding that Appellant waived any rights he may have had under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, failed to timely file the instant Petition, and failed to invoke an exception to PCRA time-bar).
The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA court's Opinion to all future filings.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/6/2016
Image materials not available for display.