Opinion
1205 WDA 2023 J-S24030-24
08-28-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LAVON CECIL SMITH Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 31, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014857-2000, CP-02-CR-0015047-2000
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM
SULLIVAN, J.
Lavon Cecil Smith ("Smith") appeals from the order dismissing as untimely his sixth petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Smith of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from the murder of his wife and the stabbing of his teenage daughter. The court sentenced Smith to life in prison for murder and a consecutive term of twenty to forty years in prison for attempted murder. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 847 A.2d 761 (Pa. Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 361 (Pa. 2004).
Subsequently, Smith filed multiple PCRA petitions challenging his conviction. Smith filed the instant petition, his sixth, on February 23, 2023. The PCRA court thereafter issued a Rule 907 notice. Smith did not file a response. In August 2023, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. This timelyappeal followed.
A breakdown occurred in the PCRA court in that the docket does not indicate when a copy of the order denying PCRA relief was served on Smith and said order did not indicate Smith needed to file multiple notices of appeal to comply with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). We therefore deem this appeal both timely filed and in compliance with Walker. See Commonwealth v. Midgley, 289 A.3d 1111, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2023); Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157, 160 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Smith and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Smith, who purports to bring this appeal on behalf of himself as well as "God the Father[,] God the Son[,] and God the Holy Spirit[,]" see Smith's Brief at cover (capitalization and punctuation regularized), raises a single issue for our review:
Is it not true, that the trial court has the original copies of subpeona's [sic] that pertain to jury selection, hearing dates and sentencing plus witnesses who by state and federal laws must appear in criminal court record?Smith's Brief at iii (unnumbered) (capitalization regularized).
Our standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is well-settled:
Our review of a PCRA court's decision is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error. We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party in the PCRA court. We are bound by any credibility determinations made by the PCRA court where they are supported by the record. However, we review the PCRA court's legal conclusions de novo.Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 954 (Pa. 2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The PCRA petitioner "has the burden to persuade this Court that the PCRA court erred and that such error requires relief." Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136, 144-45 (Pa. 2018) (internal citations omitted). Further, "it is well settled that this Court may affirm a valid judgment or order for any reason appearing as of record." Id. at 145 (internal citation omitted).
We must initially determine whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to adjudicate Smith's petition. Under the PCRA, any 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). 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. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). Pennsylvania courts may nevertheless consider an untimely PCRA petition if the petitioner can plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
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." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
Smith's judgment of sentence became final on September 21, 2004, when his time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); U.S.S.Ct.R. 13(1). Accordingly, Smith had until September 21, 2005, to file a timely PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Smith's sixth PCRA petition, filed in February 2023, is facially untimely.
However, to the extent we can determine from Smith's rambling brief, Smith contends his claims fall within the governmental interference and newly-discovered fact exceptions to the PCRA's timeliness requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii); see also Smith's Brief, at 1-3. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has repeatedly stated it is the appellant's burden to plead and prove one of the above-enumerated exceptions applies. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008).
This exception applies when there is "interference by government officials in the presentation of the claim." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i).
This exception applies when "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[.]" 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
Smith's argument is incomprehensible. He claims:
As the petitioners move forward, there must be a special prayer breathed, as many have not taken serious [sic] "the gift of God and eternity which is in Christ Jesus." The prayer is getting people to receive "the gift of the kingdom and it's [sic] King."
The first point of reference is the trial court opinion. So the court deems petitioners' artistic (i.e. art = skill ─ articulate = clear, effective, intelligible.) Then four words later "undiscernible"!!!
The "exhibit subpoenas," which reveals this (22-year transgression) is a material evidentiary part of Allegheny County criminal court records. . . .
Enclosed 1925(b) also reveals testimony to police from witnesses who committed "the miscarriage by not appearing with their evidence in court."
Respectfully, let it be mentioned "the Catholic Faith," ransomed-redeemed-atone-purgatory.
What brothers or sisters of the faith are going to reverse all the people who followed the evil undertaking described. Stealing or not to allow a jury trial!!! Conviction trial.
My Dad and God is the omniscient factfinder. This has more tied to the gift this is eternal life. The petitioner speaks as a representative of the Kingdom of God. You die, then the judgment.
Here is why the constitutional violation that involved Sharon Hanner and Diane Hawthorne. They coerced petitioner's (Ewe Lamb) into becoming an [sic] Babylonian Heifer. Then trying to cover it up with lies which could never be proven in a court of law.
Petitioner's wife is in the "Kingdom of God." Her friends who deceived her may never see her again.
Yet, the years where those involved, have dragged many away from "The Gift of Eternal Life."Smith's Brief at 1-3 (capitalization and punctuation regularized, record citations omitted).
We are unable to discern the nature of Smith's governmental interference and newly-discovered fact claims. Thus, Smith has not proven an exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's decision to dismiss Smith's sixth PCRA petition as untimely.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Smith's sixth PCRA petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.