From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Morris

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 21, 2016
No. J-S63039-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 21, 2016)

Opinion

J-S63039-16 No. 2436 EDA 2015

09-21-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT MORRIS, SR. Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 7, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0502931-2004 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Pro se Appellant, Robert Morris Sr., is appealing from the order dismissing his second Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition. Appellant appears to argue that because someone tampered with his mail, his PCRA petition is timely. We affirm.

We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the PCRA court's decision. PCRA Ct. Op., 10/13/15, at 1-3. Appellant filed the instant, pro se PCRA form petition on February 23, 2015. Appellant checked the box next to the entry stating that his petition was timely because interference by governmental officials prevented him from raising the claim earlier. Appellant's Pro Se PCRA Pet., 1/23/15, at 2. Appellant did not further explain this alleged interference in his petition. On June 16, 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice. Appellant did not respond, and the court dismissed the petition on July 7, 2015. Appellant timely appealed, and the court did not order Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

We acknowledge that an en banc Superior Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and mandatory life sentence on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Morris , 958 A.2d 569, 572 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).

"Our standard of review of a PCRA court's dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Wilson , 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted).

As our Supreme Court has explained:

the PCRA timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, a PCRA court is precluded from considering untimely PCRA petitions. We have also held that even where the PCRA court does not address the applicability of the PCRA timing mandate, th[e] Court will consider the issue sua sponte, as it is a threshold question implicating our subject matter jurisdiction and ability to grant the requested relief.
Commonwealth v. Whitney , 817 A.2d 473, 477-78 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted).

A PCRA petition "must normally be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final . . . unless one of the exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies and the petition is filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented." Commonwealth v. Copenhefer , 941 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (some citations and footnote omitted). The three exceptions to the general one-year time limitation are:

(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).

Instantly, Appellant has failed to plead and prove any of the three timeliness exceptions in his PCRA petition and therefore has not overcome the one-year timebar. See id.; Whitney , 817 A.2d at 477-78. Appellant has failed to identify and explain the governmental interference. To the extent he appears to accuse the Commonwealth of withholding exculpatory testimony in a preliminary hearing transcript, he raised that issue in his prior PCRA petition. Appellant's PCRA Pet., 3/4/11, at 3-4. Accordingly, having discerned no abuse of discretion, we affirm the order below. See Wilson , 824 A.2d at 833.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/21/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Morris

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 21, 2016
No. J-S63039-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 21, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Morris

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT MORRIS, SR. Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 21, 2016

Citations

No. J-S63039-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 21, 2016)