From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Faulkner

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 31, 2018
No. 1267 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2018)

Opinion

J-S25018-18 No. 1267 WDA 2017

08-31-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM J. FAULKNER Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 7, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0004526-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.

William J. Faulkner appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny 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 PCRA Court Opinion, filed 11/28/17, at 1-5. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary.

Briefly, on February 2, 2011, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, criminal conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, and two counts each of recklessly endangering another person and unlawful restraint. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence, and following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's denial of appeal, Appellant's judgment of sentence became final on May 14, 2013.

Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition on November 3, 2015. The PCRA court appointed counsel. While Appellant acknowledged his current petition was untimely, he asserted that a breakdown in the court system led to an earlier, timely PCRA petition, not being filed. Because this earlier petition was timely, he asserted that his current claims, which he also raised in his "first" PCRA petition, should be entertained.

The PCRA court held a hearing. Appellant testified that he mailed a PCRA petition on March 11, 2013, and presented a monthly accounting statement that indicated Appellant mailed something in March 2013. But the postage paid, just twenty cents, does not correspond to the cost of mailing a letter. The Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant had mailed four items to the Clerk of Courts between 2014 and 2015, all of which were docketed and timestamped. Following the hearing, the PCRA court denied Appellant's PCRA petition as untimely, finding Appellant's testimony incredible and therefore insufficient to prove that his earlier petition was timely. 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 attacks the PCRA court's findings of facts and conclusions of law as logically flawed. See Appellant's Brief, at 3 ¶¶ 1-2, 11-21. Appellant contends he proved that he filed a PCRA petition within the one- year PCRA period under the "prisoner mail box rule." Id., at 22-26. Therefore, Appellant asserts he is entitled to review of his underlying PCRA issues. See id., at 27.

The "prisoner mail-box rule" provides that when a prisoner is proceeding pro se, and files an appeal by mail, the notice of appeal is deemed filed "on the date that the appellant deposits the appeal with prison authorities and/or places it in the prison mailbox." Commonwealth v. Jones , 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997). See also Commonwealth v. Little , 716 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 1998) (holding that the prisoner mailbox rule is applicable to petitions flies pursuant to the PCRA).

The PCRA court, in its November 28, 2017 opinion, has methodically reviewed his claims and disposed of these arguments on the merits. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable Jill E. Rangos. Judge Rangos's opinion comprehensively disposed of Appellant's arguments with appropriate references to the record and without legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's order based on Judge Rangos's opinion filed November 28, 2017.

The PCRA court opinion incorrectly concludes that Johnson's judgment of sentence became final on February 13, 2013. See PCRA Court Opinion, 11/28/17, at 6. However, as noted above, Faulkner's judgment of sentence did not become final until May 14, 2013—when his time for filing a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court expired. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13. This error does not affect Judge Rangos's reasoning and thus does not affect our decision to affirm based on her opinion.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/31/2018

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Faulkner

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 31, 2018
No. 1267 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Faulkner

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM J. FAULKNER Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 31, 2018

Citations

No. 1267 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2018)