Opinion
J-S51005-18 No. 2385 EDA 2017
01-23-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHAWNN DAVIS, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004958-2009, CP-51-CR-0004964-2009, CP-51-CR-0004968-2009, CP-51-CR-0004970-2009, CP-51-CR-0005044-2009, CP-51-CR-0007039-2008 BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:
Appellant, Shawnn Davis, appeals pro se from the June 12, 2017 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing as untimely his first Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm on the basis that Appellant's PCRA Petition is untimely and this Court, thus, lacks jurisdiction to review the Petition.
Contrary to much of the certified record, we note that Appellant signed his pro se pleadings as "Shawn Davis" rather than "Shawnn Davis."
The underlying facts are not relevant to the instant appeal. Briefly, on June 18, 2010, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to numerous counts of Robbery, Criminal Conspiracy, and Possession of an Instrument of Crime. That same day, the trial court imposed the negotiated aggregate sentence of 12½ to 25 years' incarceration. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. Appellant's Judgment of Sentence thus became final thirty days later on July 19, 2010, upon expiration of the time to file a direct appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3).
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701; 18 Pa.C.S. § 903; and 18 Pa.C.S. § 907, respectively.
July 18, 2010, was a Sunday. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908.
On February 22, 2017, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his first, challenging the legality of his sentence. The PCRA court appointed counsel and eventually permitted counsel to withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley . On June 12, 2017, the PCRA court dismissed the instant PCRA Petition without a hearing after providing notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.
Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
Appellant timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
We note that Appellant filed a single notice of appeal after the trial court entered a single sentencing order listing six separate docket numbers. In Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme Court announced, "[I]n future cases [Pa.R.A.P.] 341(a) will, in accordance with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal." Id. at 977 (footnote omitted). Walker was decided on June 1, 2018, after Appellant filed his appeal in the cases before us. Accordingly, Walker is not controlling in the instant appeal, and we decline to quash Appellant's appeal.
Appellant presents two similar issues for our review:
1. Absent [ McMillan ], is Pennsylvania's mandatory minimum sentencing act void?Appellant's Brief at 5 (capitalization omitted).
2. Absent [ McMillan ], has Pennsylvania lost constitutional authority to link offense to punishment?
McMillan v. Pennsylvania , 477 U.S. 79 (1986). --------
We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court's findings and whether its order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears , 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014).
Before addressing the merits of Appellant's PCRA 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).
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). As detailed above, Appellant had until July 19, 2011, to file his PCRA Petition. His filing on February 22, 2017, was, therefore, untimely by more than five years.
Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the appellant pleads and proves one of the three exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Any petition invoking a timeliness exception must be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Here, Appellant has not attempted to plead or prove that his Petition falls within the timeliness exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Therefore, Appellant has not met his burden under the PCRA.
Accordingly, the PCRA court properly concluded that Appellant failed to plead and prove any of the timeliness exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1), and properly dismissed Appellant's Petition as untimely. We, thus, affirm the denial of PCRA relief.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/23/19