J-S64042-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JAMES M. OVERLY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JON FISHER
Appellee No. 995 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered May 30, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 459 M 2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 31, 2014
Appellant, James M. Overly, appeals pro se from the order entered in
the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his “Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” against Appellee, Jon Fisher,
the superintendent at SCI Smithfield. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
In 1984, a jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, and the trial
court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment on February 14, 1986. This
Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on December 4, 1986, and
our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on July 31, 1987. See
Commonwealth v. Overly, 520 A.2d 1216 (Pa.Super. 1986), appeal
denied, 515 Pa. 613, 530 A.2d 867 (1987). Later, the trial court granted
Appellant leave to file a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act
J-S64042-14
(predecessor to the Post Conviction Relief Act) to reinstate his appeal rights
nunc pro tunc to raise issues which should have been raised on direct
appeal. This Court again affirmed the judgment of sentence on January 8,
1990, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on June 12, 1990.
See Commonwealth v. Overly, 573 A.2d 622 (Pa.Super. 1990), appeal
denied, 525 Pa. 617, 577 A.2d 889 (1990).
On May 28, 2014, Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus in civil
court, in which he alleged Appellee is unlawfully restraining Appellant in
prison.1 The civil court denied Appellant’s petition on June 2, 2014.
Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 16, 2014. On July 2,
2014, the civil court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely
complied on July 14, 2014.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPLAINT AGAINST
[APPELLANT]?
DOES LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION
MEAN LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE OR NATURAL LIFE?
IS THE SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT LAWFUL OR
MORE SPECIFICALLY IS THERE STATUTORY
AUTHORI[Z]ATION FOR THE IMPOSED SENTENCE?
____________________________________________
1
The only certified record we have is from the civil court filing.
-2-
J-S64042-14
HAS THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
BEEN SUSPENDED AND DID THE [CIVIL] COURT VIOLATE
[APPELLANT’S] RIGHT TO PETITION[?]
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
Section 9542 of the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) provides in
relevant part:
§ 9542. Scope of subchapter
This subchapter provides for an action by which persons
convicted of crimes they did not commit and persons
serving illegal sentences may obtain collateral relief. The
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. This subchapter is not intended to limit the
availability of remedies in the trial court or on direct appeal
from the judgment of sentence, to provide a means for
raising issues waived in prior proceedings or to provide
relief from collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.
Except as specifically provided otherwise, all provisions of
this subchapter shall apply to capital and noncapital cases.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (emphasis added). Thus, as a general rule, any petition
for post-conviction collateral relief will be considered as a PCRA petition,
even those captioned as requests for habeas corpus relief, if the petition
raises issues for which the relief sought is the kind of remedy available
under the PCRA. See generally Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313,
737 A.2d 214 (1999); Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214, 736 A.2d
564 (1999); Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638
(1998). The writ of habeas corpus continues to exist as a separate remedy
-3-
J-S64042-14
only if the claim raised is not cognizable under the PCRA. Id. at 552, 722
A.2d at 640.
Instantly, Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in civil
court, but a review of Appellant’s issues indicates he is trying to obtain
criminal collateral relief. Moreover, Appellant fails to identify any claims that
might arguably fall outside of the PCRA. Therefore, despite Appellant’s
efforts to characterize the present petition as a civil habeas corpus petition,
we conclude his requests for relief fall within the ambit of the PCRA. See
Fahy, supra; Lantzy, supra; Peterkin, supra. Thus, the civil court
properly recognized that Appellant’s recent prayer for collateral relief should
be filed in criminal court. See id. If Appellant pursues relief on the grounds
stated, he must file a proper PCRA petition in criminal court. Accordingly,
the civil court properly denied Appellant’s petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/31/2014
-4-