Opinion
J-S14015-18 No. 1096 EDA 2017
05-31-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ALLISTER DURRANTE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 6, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0618671-1994 BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Allister Durrante appeals, pro se, from the order entered March 6, 2017, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court construed to be a serial, untimely PCRA petition. Durrante seeks relief from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of life imprisonment, imposed on April 25, 1996, following his jury conviction of second-degree murder and related charges. On appeal, Durrante contends the PCRA court improperly construed his filing to be a PCRA petition when his claim for relief is unavailable under the PCRA. For the reasons below, we affirm.
See Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b).
The PCRA court aptly summarized the relevant factual and procedural history underlying this appeal as follows:
On October 5, 1995, following a jury trial presided over by the Honorable Eugene H. Clarke, Jr., Allister Durrante [] was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, criminal conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. On April 25, 1996, the trial court sentenced [Durrante] to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and a consecutive term of incarceration on the conspiracy and weapons convictions. Following a direct appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on May 9, 1997.2 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on December 1, 1997.3
2 Commonwealth v. Durrante , 698 A.2d 1344 (Pa. Super. 1997) (unpublished memorandum).
3 Commonwealth v. Durrante , 705 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1997).
On December 4, 1998, [Durrante] filed his first pro se PCRA petition. Barbara McDermott, Esquire, was appointed, and she subsequently filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter.4 The PCRA court subsequently denied the petition on April 10, 2000. Following three separate remands by the Superior Court, the PCRA court again denied the PCRA petition without a hearing on January 17, 2007. On April 30, 2008, the Superior Court affirmed the order denying relief.5 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocator on November 25, 2008.6
4 Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
5 Commonwealth v. Durrante , 953 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum).
6 Commonwealth v. Durrante , 960 A.2d 836 (Pa. 2008) (table).
On January 14, 2009, [Durrante] filed his second PCRA petition. On October 14, 2009, the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely. On July 1, 2010, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal.7
7 Commonwealth v. Durrante , 4 A.3d 705 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum).
PCRA Court Opinion, 5/24/2017, at 1-2.
On September 9, 2010, [Durrante] filed the instant pro se collateral petition. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907, [Durrante] was served notice of this court's intention to dismiss his PCRA petition on December 13, 2016. [Durrante] submitted a response to the Rule 907 notice on January 3, 2017. On March 6, 2017, the PCRA court formally dismissed the petition as untimely. On March 23, 2017, the instant notice of appeal was timely filed to the Superior Court.
The PCRA court did not direct Durrante to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Durrante's sole claim on appeal is the PCRA court erred in treating his petition for writ of habeas corpus as an untimely filed PCRA petition. Specifically, Durrante asserts he is a "citizen of Trinidad and Tobago," and the Philadelphia police failed to honor the Vienna Convention by notifying the Trinidadian consulate upon his detention for the crimes committed herein. Durrante's Brief at 10. Furthermore, he insists "the only forum with which to raise [this] claim was upon habeas corpus." Id . at 9.
Our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant statutory and case law, reveals the PCRA court thoroughly discussed and properly disposed of Durrante's claim on appeal in its opinion. Therefore, we affirm on its well-reasoned basis. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/24/2017, at 2-5 (finding (1) Durrante's claim is cognizable under the PCRA; (2) Durrante's PCRA petition was untimely filed, as his judgment of sentence was final on March 1, 1998; (3) Durrante failed to plead or prove any of the time-for-filing exceptions in the PCRA; and (4) even assuming arguendo, the claim was reviewable, Durrante would be entitled to no relief since the relevant provision of the Vienna Convention does not provide a remedy for the violations of that provision).
PCRA Court Opinion, 5/24/2017, at 2.
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(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").
See id. at § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Durrante's petition as an untimely filed PCRA petition.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/31/18
Image materials not available for display.