Opinion
J-S46018-16 No. 2419 EDA 2015
08-19-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GABRIEL G. OCASIO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 7, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0514001-2000 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Gabriel G. Ocasio appeals, pro se, from the order entered on July 7, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying him relief, without a hearing, on his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. Specifically, the PCRA court determined this petition was untimely. Following a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm on the sound analysis of the PCRA court and direct the parties to attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion, filed 10/13/2015, in case of further proceedings.
Initially, we note, "Our standard of review over the denial of a PCRA petition is well-settled. In reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Mitchell , ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 3909072 (Pa. 2016) (filed (7/19/2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The PCRA court opinion in this matter accurately recounts the factual and procedural history of this matter. We briefly note that in 2005, Ocasio was convicted by jury of one count of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, and a variety of related charges. Ocasio was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. After his direct appeal afforded him no relief, Ocasio filed his first PCRA petition and was represented by James Bruno, Esq. This also provided no relief to Ocasio. He filed a second PCRA petition, pro se. This petition claimed Bruno was ineffective. The second petition was dismissed as untimely. A panel of our Court affirmed that decision. This petition, Ocasio's third, again raises claims of Bruno's ineffective assistance. Here, Ocasio attempts to evade the timeliness requirements that doomed his prior petition by claiming he only recently discovered Bruno had been suspended from the practice of law due to mental health issues. However, the PCRA court appropriately noted that Ocasio fails to explain how this fact affects his case given that Bruno's suspension from the practice of law was made retroactive to February 26, 2013 while Bruno's representation of Ocasio ended in 2009.
Commonwealth v. Ocasio , 919 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. 2007) (unpublished memorandum).
No appeal was taken from the dismissal of this petition.
See Commonwealth v. Ocasio , 2014 WL 10979204 (3/6/2014) (unpublished memorandum).
There is some indication that Attorney Bruno's symptoms may have first manifested in 2011. However, that is still well after his relationship with Ocasio terminated.
Our review of the certified record discloses the PCRA court's order is based upon the facts of record and is free from error. Accordingly, Ocasio is not entitled to relief.
Order affirmed. Parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion, dated, October 13, 2015, in the event of further proceedings. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/19/2016
Image materials not available for display.