J-S79028-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
HENRY GLEN ROBINSON
Appellant No. 927 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 12, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0001101-1981
CP-39-CR-0001102-1981
BEFORE: ALLEN, OLSON and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2015
Appellant, Henry Glen Robinson, appeals pro se from the order entered
on March 12, 2014 dismissing his fourth petition for relief filed under the
Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
This Court has previously outlined the factual background and
procedural history of this case as follows:
Appellant was arrested on May 30, 1981, for his involvement in
the armed robbery and murder of Perry Minich. On February 26,
1982, Appellant pled guilty to criminal homicide[1] and nolo
contendere to robbery.2 Appellant was sentenced to life
imprisonment on September 15, 1983. On direct appeal, this
Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for
allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 488 A.2d
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. §[ 3701(a)(1)].
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S79028-14
1167 (Pa. Super. 1984) (unpublished memorandum), appeal
denied, 107 E.D. Alloc. Dkt. 85 (Pa. 1985).
On May 8, 1997, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition, and
subsequently in 2010, Appellant filed his second PCRA petition.
Appellant was not afforded relief on either petition. See
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 2433 PHL 1997 (Pa. Super.
19[9]8) [(unpublished memorandum)], and Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 31 A.3d 742 (Pa. Super. 2011) [(unpublished
memorandum)], appeal denied, 34 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2011).
Appellant filed [his third PCRA petition] on July 23, 2012. In said
petition, Appellant asserted a newly recognized Constitutional
right pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 93 A.3d 503 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished
memorandum) (certain footnotes omitted), at 1-2. Appellant was ultimately
denied relief with respect to his third PCRA petition. See generally id.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 16,
2014. In his petition, Appellant alleged that his sentence was illegal. The
PCRA court treated Appellant’s habeas corpus petition as a PCRA petition
and issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. On February 20, 2014, the
PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition as time-barred. This timely appeal
followed.3
Appellant presents three issues for our review:
3
On March 27, 2014, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On April 14, 2014, Appellant filed his concise statement.
On April 15, 2014, the PCRA court issued a statement in lieu of a Rule
1925(a) opinion. Appellant’s first and second issues were included in his
concise statement while his third issue addresses the sufficiency of the PCRA
court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion.
-2-
J-S79028-14
1. Did the [PCRA] court err as a matter of constitutional law by
construing [Appellant]’s common law habeas corpus petition
as an untimely, serial PCRA petition based upon an
unconstitutional statute, 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9542, that was
enacted in violation of the prohibitory language contained in
Article I, § 14 and Article I, § 25 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution?
2. Did the [PCRA] court err as a matter of constitutional law by
dismissing [Appellant]’s common law habeas corpus petition
by applying 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b) in an unconstitutional
manner, thereby depriving him of his inherent right to seek
habeas corpus relief pursuant to Article I, § 14 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution which cannot be suspended,
limited[,] or altered except as the Constitution adopted by the
people provides?
3. Did the [PCRA] court err as a matter of law when it failed to
include and substantively address the constitutional claims
raised by [Appellant] in his Rule 1925(b) statement in its Rule
1925(a) opinion?
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.
On appeal, Appellant concedes that his petition is patently untimely
and that his petition does not satisfy any of the statutory exceptions to the
PCRA’s timeliness requirement. Courts lack jurisdiction over untimely PCRA
petitions that do not satisfy a timeliness exception. See Commonwealth v.
Callahan, 101 A.3d 118, 121–122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
Appellant argues, however, that the PCRA is unconstitutional in two
respects. First, he contends that the PCRA’s subsuming of the common law
writ of habeas corpus violates Article I, §§ 14 and 25 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. Second, he contends that the PCRA’s timeliness requirement is
unconstitutional because it denies him the ability to seek post-conviction
-3-
J-S79028-14
relief. “As the constitutionality of a statute presents a pure question of law,
our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 118 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citation omitted).
Our Supreme Court rejected the same claims advanced by Appellant
relating to the constitutionality of the PCRA. In Commonwealth v.
Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638, 641 (Pa. 1998), our Supreme Court held that the
PCRA did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution’s prohibition against the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Furthermore, our Supreme Court
held that the PCRA’s one year time-bar was a reasonable restriction on the
right to seek habeas corpus relief. Id. at 642. Appellant argues throughout
his brief that Peterkin was incorrectly decided. It is axiomatic, however,
that this Court is bound by our Supreme Court’s decisions. See Strausser
Enters., Inc. v. Segal & Morel, Inc., 89 A.3d 292, 300 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant’s two challenges
to the constitutionality of the PCRA are without merit.
The PCRA court correctly treated Appellant’s petition as seeking relief
under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Eller, 807 A.2d 838, 842–843
(Pa. 2002) (All claims cognizable under the PCRA, such as Appellant’s, must
be brought under the PCRA and not through habeas corpus proceedings.).
As Appellant’s petition was patently untimely, and he failed to satisfy any of
the statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement, the PCRA
-4-
J-S79028-14
court properly dismissed the petition without addressing the merits of the
constitutional issues raised by Appellant.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2015
-5-