Opinion
J-S44040-18 No. 408 EDA 2018
08-21-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN SAUERWINE, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 12, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003289-2006, CP-39-CR-0003290-2006, CP-39-CR-0003292-2006 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Brian Sauerwine ("Sauerwine"), pro se, appeals from the Order dismissing, as untimely filed, his third Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
In a prior appeal of the denial of PCRA relief, the PCRA court summarized the relevant history underlying Sauerwine's criminal conviction as follows:
On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2006, ... [Sauerwine] sexually assaulted his three young nieces. All of the girls were five years old or younger at the time of the abuse, which occurred when they visited [Sauerwine's] house....
The children eventually reported the abuse to a mother of one of the girls. On March 27, 2006, the mother relayed the reports of abuse to Lehigh County Children and Youth Services. The Commonwealth subsequently filed three criminal informations against [Sauerwine], one for each victim.
On April 16, 2007, [Sauerwine] entered a guilty plea to indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3126(a)(7) and (b)(ii), in each of these three cases.... Under the plea bargain, all other charges, some of which were serious felonies, were withdrawn. The plea bargain also required that the court give minimum confinement sentences which did not exceed the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. There was no plea bargain as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/16/09, at 2-3. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Sauerwine to 27 months to 15 years in prison. Sauerwine filed no direct appeal from his judgment of sentence.
On October 13, 2017, more than nine years after his judgment of sentence became final, Sauerwine filed the instant PCRA Petition, his third. Sauerwine alleged that a May 17, 2006 letter issued by the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services ("OCYS") entitles him to relief under the PCRA. Sauerwine further asserted that he has witnesses that will testify as to his innocence. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who subsequently filed a Motion to withdraw from representation, and a "no-merit" letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), asserting that Sauerwine's Petition is untimely, and not subject to any exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirement. After appropriate Notice, the PCRA court dismissed Sauerwine's PCRA Petition without a hearing. Thereafter, Sauerwine filed the instant timely appeal.
Before addressing the merits of Sauerwine's argument, we first must determine whether Sauerwine timely filed his PCRA Petition. A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the petitioner's judgment of sentence became final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The one-year time limitation is jurisdictional, and a trial court has no power to address the substantive merits of an untimely petition. Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal , 833 A.2d 719, 723-24 (Pa. 2003); Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor , 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000). The three exceptions to the one-year filing requirement are for newly discovered facts, interference by a government official, and a newly-recognized constitutional right. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). However, "[a]ny petition invoking an exception ... shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of proving the applicability of one of the exceptions. Commonwealth v. Edmiston , 65 A.3d 339, 346 (Pa. 2013).
Sauerwine has not included, in his appellate brief, a statement of the questions involved, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a).
In its Opinion, the PCRA court determined that Sauerwine's Petition is untimely, and that Sauerwine failed to establish an exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirement. See PCRA Court Opinion, 2/21/18, at 6-7. We agree with the PCRA court's analysis and conclusion, and affirm on this basis. See id. Because Sauerwine's instant PCRA Petition was untimely, and not subject to any of the PCRA's timeliness exceptions, we affirm the Order of the PCRA court.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/21/18
Image materials not available for display.