From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Chrupalyk

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 21, 2018
No. 440 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2018)

Opinion

J-S07022-18 No. 440 EDA 2017

08-21-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL CHRUPALYK Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order January 24, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0302471-2004, CP-51-CR-0302491-2004 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.

Russell Chrupalyk appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court accurately summarized the history of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/13/17, at 1-4. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary.

Briefly, on October 21, 2005, Appellant was convicted of two counts each of first-degree murder, criminal solicitation, and criminal conspiracy. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, and following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's denial of an allowance of appeal, Appellant's judgment of sentence became final on January 16, 2009.

Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition on February 10, 2011. While Appellant acknowledged his petition was untimely, he asserted he met the after-discovered facts exception, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), to the PCRA time-bar. Specifically, Appellant claimed he was mentally incompetent during the relevant PCRA filing period, and therefore, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cruz , 852 A.2d 287 (Pa. 2004), satisfied the requirements of § 9545(b)(1)(ii). Despite this claim, the PCRA court denied Appellant's petition without a hearing.

Following an appeal, a panel of this Court determined that the PCRA court lacked the necessary factual record to determine if Appellant was incompetent during the relevant PCRA filing period. See Commonwealth v. Chrupalyk , 1686 EDA 2012, at 6 (Pa. Super., filed April 4, 2013) (unpublished memorandum). Therefore, the case was remanded to the PCRA court to give Appellant the "opportunity to attempt to prove that he was incompetent at the relevant times and that that incompetence qualifies under the after-discovered evidence exception to the PCRA time-bar." Id. (citing Cruz , 852 A.2d at 297).

On remand, the PCRA court held a hearing. Appellant presented the testimony of Dr. Frank M. Dattilio, P.D., ABPP. Dr. Dattilio testified that Appellant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. However, following the hearing, the PCRA court once again denied Appellant's PCRA petition as untimely, finding that Appellant failed to prove his paranoid schizophrenia rendered him incompetent during the relevant times. This appeal follows.

"On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record and without legal error." Commonwealth v. Edmiston , 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). On questions of law, our scope of review is de novo. See id .

On appeal, Appellant contends that he proved his incompetence during the relevant time-period through the testimony of Dr. Dattilio. Therefore, Appellant asserts he has met the after-discovered facts exception to the PCRA time bar, entitling him to review of his underlying PCRA issues.

The PCRA court, in its April 13, 2017 opinion, has methodically reviewed this claim and disposed of Appellant's argument on the merits. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable Shelia Woods-Skipper. Judge Woods-Skipper's opinion comprehensively disposes of Appellant's argument with appropriate references to the record and without legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's order based on Judge Woods-Skipper's opinion filed April 13, 2017.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/21/18

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Chrupalyk

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 21, 2018
No. 440 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Chrupalyk

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL CHRUPALYK Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 21, 2018

Citations

No. 440 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2018)