J-S37044-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LUIS MANUEL CRUZ
Appellant No. 3190 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 22, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-2100766-1999
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 26, 2015
Luis Manuel Cruz appeals from the Order of the Court of Common
Pleas of Lehigh County that dismissed his habeas corpus petition, which the
court erroneously treated as a petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”).1 After careful review, we affirm.
A jury found Cruz guilty of first-degree murder on March 8, 2000, and
returned a verdict of life imprisonment in the penalty phase of the trial the
following day. The court immediately sentenced Cruz to life imprisonment.
Cruz did not file a direct appeal, and his judgment of sentence became final
on April 10, 2000, when his time to file a direct appeal expired. See
____________________________________________
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S37044-15
Pa.R.A.P. 903. Thus, Cruz had until April 10, 2001 to file a timely PCRA
petition. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
Between 2005 and 2013, Cruz filed several PCRA petitions seeking
collateral relief, all of which were dismissed. In the instant matter, Cruz
filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad [Subjiciendum] dated
June 8, 2014,2 with the sole allegation that his confinement is illegal because
the Department of Corrections (DOC) does not have a copy of his sentencing
order. He bases his argument on section 9764 of the Sentencing Code,
which provides, in relevant part:
§ 9764. Information required upon commitment and
subsequent disposition
(a) General rule. – Upon commitment of an inmate to the
custody of the Department of Corrections, the sheriff or
transporting official shall provide to the Institution’s
records officer or duty officer, in addition to a copy of the
court commitment form DC-300B generated from the
Common Pleas Criminal Court Case Management System
of the unified judicial system, the following information.
...
(8) A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed
against the inmate which the county has notice.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8).
____________________________________________
2
The habeas petition is dated June 8, 2014, but was not stamped “filed”
until July 16, 2014. The trial court apparently had access to the petition
earlier than July 16, since it issued an order dated July 3, 2014, which
denied Cruz’s request for counsel in relation to the petition, and issued an
order dated July 10, 2014, which indicated the court’s intention to dismiss
the petition as an untimely PCRA petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.
-2-
J-S37044-15
On July 10, 2014, the court provided Cruz with notice pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1) that it was treating the habeas corpus petition as a
PCRA petition, which it intended to dismiss as untimely filed. The court
dismissed the petition on October 22, 2014.
This timely appeal followed, in which Cruz, acting pro se, raises the
following issues, verbatim, for our review:
1) Did the P.C.R.A court commit an error of fact that defendant
did not present genuine issues of material fact that does not
warrant relief under writ of habeas corpus ad-subjiciendum or
Post Conviction Act
2) Withdrawn
3) Whether trial court has inherent jurisdiction to modify or
rescind an illegal sentence order, a clerical error that is
absent the statutory jurisdiction to lawfully incarcerate
defendant
4) Whether trial court has interfered with appellant’s rights to
access his entire discovery and transcripts that is public
record at the cost of production to the defendant for the use
in the official capacity as an exhibit/evidence to demonstrate
a miscarriage of justice, defective sentence order.3
Brief for Appellant, at 3.
The trial court did not file an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Instead, the court relied upon its order of July 10, 2014, which stated the
____________________________________________
3
Issue 4) was not raised within the instant habeas corpus petition, but
rather was raised separately by Cruz in a self-styled “Petition for Production
of Discovery and Transcripts” filed on February 25, 2014. The trial court
issued orders with respect to that petition on May 16, 2014, and May 30,
2014. Therefore, this issue is not properly before the Court and will not be
addressed.
-3-
J-S37044-15
court’s intention to dismiss Cruz’s habeas petition as an untimely PCRA
petition and the reasons for doing so. The court indicated it was
“considering the filing a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9542.” Order, 7/10/14, at 2.
Section 9542 states that the PCRA “provides for an action by which . .
. persons serving illegal sentences may obtain collateral relief.” 42 Pa.C.S. §
9542. Nevertheless, in Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014),
this Court held that a claim that a sentence is illegal because the DOC is
unable to produce a written sentencing order is properly raised in a habeas
corpus petition. However, this Court also held that section 9764(a)(8):
does not create any remedy or cause of action for a prisoner
based upon the failure to provide a copy [of his sentencing
order] to the DOC. The statute regulates the exchange of
prisoner information between the state and county prison
system, and does not provide for a basis for habeas relief.
Joseph, supra at 370.
Here, the sole issue raised in Cruz’s habeas petition is that the DOC
could not produce his sentencing order. Accordingly, the trial court properly
dismissed Cruz’s petition, although for a reason other than the one stated in
the October 22, 2014 order.4
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
4
“This Court may affirm the trial court’s decision on any basis supported by
the record.” Commonwealth v. Barren, 74 A.3d 250, 254 (Pa. 2013)
(citation omitted).
-4-
J-S37044-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/26/2015
-5-