J-S48006-16
J-S48007-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GEORGE WAYNE BROOKS
Appellant No. 842 WDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008889-1975
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS
Appellant No. 188 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008889-1975
BEFORE: BOWES, DUBOW AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J: FILED JUNE 24, 2016
J-S48006-16
J-S48007-16
George Wayne Brooks a/k/a George Rahsaan Brooks appeals from two
orders denying him relief in this 1975 criminal case.1 We affirm.
Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment after a jury convicted
him on May 18, 1976, of second-degree murder and robbery. The victim,
Michael Miller, was killed during a robbery, and, before he died, Miller
identified Appellant as his assailant. On direct appeal, we affirmed.
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 484 A.2d 811 (Pa.Super. 1984) (unpublished
memorandum). Appellant filed three unsuccessful petitions under the now-
repealed Post Conviction Hearing Act. He then filed five fruitless PCRA
petitions. In a 2006 appeal from denial of his first PCRA petition, we
concluded that Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on February
5, 1982, and that a PCRA petition filed on June 16, 2004, was untimely.
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 898 A.2d 1124 (Pa.Super. 2006) (unpublished
memorandum)
The petitions pertinent to this appeal include another PCRA petition,
and a document labeled as a misconduct complaint against the district
attorney. The trial court properly treated both requests for relief as PCRA
petitions and dismissed them as untimely. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (“The action
established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral
____________________________________________
1
We note that the appeal from the April 20, 2015 order is considered timely
under the prisoner mailbox rule.
-2-
J-S48006-16
J-S48007-16
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.”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) (all PCRA petitions must
be filed within one year of when a PCRA petitioner’s judgment of sentence
becomes final). These appeals followed.
This Court’s “standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is
limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court's
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049, 1052 (Pa.Super. 2015). Herein,
at 842 WDA 2016, Appellant’s arguments are indecipherable, and we are
unable discern the grounds upon which he is challenging his judgment of
sentence. Critically, Appellant fails to indicate either how his request for
relief falls outside of the ambit of the PCRA or how the PCRA petition in
question was timely. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) (PCRA petitioner has burden of
pleading and proving that one of the three exceptions to the one-year time
bar apply to his claim).
In his brief at 188 WDA 2016, Appellant avers that his sentence his
illegal; any averment regarding the legality of a sentence must be brought in
a timely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa.
1999) (“Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within the
PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA's time limits or one of the
exceptions thereto.”); see also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516
-3-
J-S48006-16
J-S48007-16
(Pa.Super. 2011). Again, in this brief, Appellant invokes no exception to the
one-year time bar outlined in § 9545(b)(1). Hence, we affirm.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/24/2016
-4-