Opinion
J-S65034-17 No. 3442 EDA 2016
11-16-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERNEST McKNIGHT, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 19, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0209971-1993 BEFORE: OLSON, OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Ernest McKnight ("McKnight"), pro se, appeals from the Order dismissing his second Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
Although McKnight styled his Petition as a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the PCRA court properly treated it as a Petition filed pursuant to the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (providing that "[t]he action established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis."); see also Commonwealth v . Hall , 771 A.2d 1232, 1235 (Pa. 2001) (holding that "[n]o other statutory or common law remedy 'for the same purpose' is intended to be available; instead, such remedies are explicitly 'encompassed' within the PCRA.").
In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/19/17, at 1-2.
On appeal, McKnight initially raised the following issues for our review:
1. Was all prior counsel[] ineffective for failing to raise the issue of [McKnight's] illegal sentence he originally received from the [trial court?]Brief for Appellant at 2 (some capitalization omitted).
2. Is it correct that illegal/incorrect senten[c]es are never waived[?]
3. In the interest of fundamental fairness, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, equal protection and procedural due process[,] does a person (such as [McKnight]) who violate[s] their county probation/parole are resentenced to a term of state incarceration, in violation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 5505[?]
McKnight subsequently filed an Amended Brief, in which he restates his issues as follows:
1. Is it not correct the sentencing court erred as a matter of law, when; at the initial time of sentencing, the court did not "suspend" [McKnight's] term of imprisonment before the court imposed his sentence of probation, thus resulting in [McKnight] receiving an "illegally imposed" [O]rder of probation?Amended Brief for Appellant at 2 (capitalization omitted, emphasis in original).
2. Is it not correct the court sentenced [McKnight] to an "illegal" sentence of probation, thus rendering the sentence that he received for a violation of probation also illegal, as well?
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This Court may affirm a PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the record supports it. We grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Further, where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
Under the PCRA, any PCRA petition "including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]" 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis added). A judgment of sentence becomes final "at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review." Id. § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA's timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and 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).
Here, McKnight's judgment of sentence became final on June 7, 2010, when the period of time to file an appeal with our Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also Commonwealth v. Rojas , 874 A.2d 638, 643 (Pa. Super. 2005). McKnight had until June 7, 2011, to file the instant PCRA Petition, but did not do so until March 24, 2015. Thus, McKnight's Petition is facially untimely under the PCRA.
Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Any PCRA petition invoking one of these exceptions "shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented." Id. § 9545(b)(2); see also Albrecht , 994 A.2d at 1094.
Here, McKnight has failed to plead or prove the applicability of any of the exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); see also Albrecht , 994 A.2d at 1094. Accordingly, McKnight has failed to overcome the untimeliness of his Petition.
Rather than addressing any of the PCRA timeliness exceptions, McKnight incorrectly argues that his illegal sentencing claim is (1) cognizable under the PCRA; and (2) cannot be waived. Brief for Appellant at 9. While illegal sentencing claims are cognizable under the PCRA, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vii), a PCRA court is without jurisdiction to address such claims unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner is able to satisfy one of the timeliness exceptions. See Commonwealth v. Jackson , 30 A.3d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that "when the one-year filing deadline of section 9545 has expired, and no statutory exception has been pled or proven, a PCRA court cannot invoke inherent jurisdiction to correct orders, judgments and decrees, even if the error is patent and obvious."). --------
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/ _________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/16/2017
Image materials not available for display.