J-S45042-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RONALD A. AIELLO,
Appellant No. 79 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 8, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-02-CR-0007117-2000
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2016
Appellant, Ronald A. Aiello, appeals pro se from the court’s order
denying his second petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act,
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, as untimely. We affirm.
On August 20, 2001, Appellant was convicted of criminal homicide, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2501, after a waiver trial. The conviction resulted from
Appellant’s fatal stabbing of his estranged wife on April 14, 2000. On August
23, 2001, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment.
This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on February 27, 2004, and the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of
appeal on August 27, 2004. (See Commonwealth v. Aiello, 849 A.2d 601
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45042-16
(Pa. Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 857 A.2d
676 (Pa. 2004)).
On October 5, 2004, Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition. The
court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition on April 3, 2006.
The PCRA court provided Appellant with notice of its intent to dismiss the
petition on November 13, 2006. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). On November
21, 2006, counsel filed a supplement to the amended PCRA petition, and the
PCRA court denied the petition on January 3, 2007, without addressing the
claims raised in the supplementary filing. Appellant timely appealed, and,
on December 13, 2007, this Court vacated the PCRA court’s order and
remanded to allow the court the opportunity to address issues raised by
Appellant in the supplementary petition. (See Commonwealth v. Aiello,
No. 210 WDA 2007, unpublished memorandum, at *7 (Pa. Super. filed Dec.
3, 2007)). On February 27, 2008, the court issued an opinion, but did not
enter the order denying PCRA relief until January 5, 2009. On March 3,
2009, due to its failure to file the order earlier, the PCRA court reinstated
Appellant’s right to appeal nunc pro tunc.
On March 6, 2009, Appellant filed a counseled appeal of the PCRA
court’s January 5, 2009 order denying PCRA relief. On August 20, 2009, this
Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on March 10, 2010. (See
-2-
J-S45042-16
Commonwealth v. Aiello, 984 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 990 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2010)).
On May 27, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se application for leave to file
original process/petition for redress of grievance, which the court treated as
a PCRA petition. On June 25, 2015, the PCRA court issued a notice of its
intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Appellant responded on
October 22, 2015 by filing a motion to withdraw the petition. However, the
court denied the petition on December 8, 2015. Appellant timely appealed.1
Appellant raises two issues for this Court’s review:
1. Can the [PCRA] court of Allegheny County deny
Appellant[’]s fundamental right to petition for redress of
grievance done pursuant to Article I, Section 20, of the Pa.
Constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution[]
[w]hen Article I, Section 26 and the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution mandate[] that civil rights of citizens cannot be
hindered along with Article I, Section 11, as well as the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mandate[] all courts shall
remain open[]?
2. Can Appellant challenge subject-matter jurisdiction along
with in personam jurisdiction by exercising said fundamental
right after PCRA became final?
(Appellant’s Brief, at unnumbered page 8) (quotation marks omitted).
Our standard of review for an order denying PCRA relief is well-settled:
This Court’s standard of review regarding a PCRA court’s
order is whether the determination of the PCRA court is
____________________________________________
1
The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a statement of errors
complained of on appeal, and the court did not file a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3-
J-S45042-16
supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error.
Great deference is granted to the findings of the PCRA court, and
these findings will not be disturbed unless they have no support
in the certified record. Moreover, a PCRA court may decline to
hold a hearing on the petition if the PCRA court determines that
a petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and is without a trace of
support in either the record or from other evidence.
Commonwealth v. Carter, 21 A.3d 680, 682 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
Before considering Appellant’s challenge, we first must determine
whether his petition was timely, thus conferring us with jurisdiction to
consider his claim on its merits.
It is well-settled that:
A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent one, must be
filed within one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of
sentence became final, unless he pleads and proves one of the
three exceptions outlined in 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b)(1). A
judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct review by this
Court or the United States Supreme Court, or at the expiration
of the time for seeking such review. 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] §
9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are
jurisdictional; therefore, a court may not address the merits of
the issues raised if the petition was not timely filed. The
timeliness requirements apply to all PCRA petitions, regardless of
the nature of the individual claims raised therein. The PCRA
squarely places upon the petitioner the burden of proving an
untimely petition fits within one of the three exceptions.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16-17 (Pa. 2012) (case citations
and footnote omitted).
-4-
J-S45042-16
In the case sub judice, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final
on November 27, 2004, which was ninety days2 after our Supreme Court
denied his petition for allowance of appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
Therefore, he had one year from that date to file a petition for collateral
relief unless he pleaded and proved that a timing exception applied. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Hence, Appellant’s current petition, filed on
May 27, 2015, is untimely on its face unless he pleads and proves one of the
statutory exceptions to the time-bar.
Section 9545 of the PCRA provides only three exceptions that allow for
review of an untimely PCRA petition: (1) the petitioner’s inability to raise a
claim because of governmental interference; (2) the discovery of previously
unknown facts that would have supported a claim; and (3) a newly-
recognized constitutional right. See id. A PCRA petition invoking one of
these statutory exceptions must “be filed within [sixty days of the date the
claim could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
Here, Appellant utterly fails to allege the applicability of a timeliness
exception, and he does not provide either pertinent citation to authority or
argument regarding the time-bar. (See Appellant’s Brief, at unnumbered
pages 11-16); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(b). Instead, his argument
____________________________________________
2
An appellant has ninety days to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court from the date of our Supreme Court’s decision.
See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13(1).
-5-
J-S45042-16
appears to be that, because he is challenging the subject matter and in
personam jurisdiction of the trial court, and he is constitutionally entitled to
raise any grievances, the PCRA court erred in dismissing his issues as
untimely. (See Appellant’s Brief, at unnumbered pages 9-15).3 This
argument fails because “[t]he timeliness requirements of the PCRA do not
vary based on the nature of the constitutional violations alleged therein.”
Commonwealth v. Howard, 788 A.2d 351, 356 (Pa. 2002) (citation
omitted); see also Jones, supra at 17 (“The [PCRA’s] timeliness
requirements apply to all PCRA petitions, regardless of the nature of the
individual claims raised therein.”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, because Appellant utterly fails to plead and prove that his
claims fall within a PCRA timeliness exception, he has failed to save his
untimely petition for review on the merits. (See Appellant’s Brief, at
____________________________________________
3
Moreover, to the extent that Appellant attempts to argue that the court
erred in treating his request for relief as a PCRA petition, (see Appellant’s
Brief, at 11, 13-14), his argument fails. It is well-settled that “the PCRA
provides the sole means for obtaining collateral review, and that any petition
filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA
petition.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 591 (Pa. Super.
2007), appeal denied, 944 A.2d 756 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted). Here, in
his petition for redress of grievance, Appellant appears to challenge the
legality of his sentence on the bases that the statutes under which he was
convicted “may or [may] not be Constitutional,” and the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to impose a sentence. (Petition for Redress of
Grievance, 5/27/15, at 5; see id. at 6). The PCRA provides a remedy for
legality of sentence challenges. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. Therefore, the
court properly treated Appellant’s request for relief as a PCRA petition.
-6-
J-S45042-16
unnumbered pages 11-16). Hence, the PCRA court did not err in denying his
petition.4 See Jones, supra at 17; Carter, supra at 682.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2016
____________________________________________
4
Although our reasoning may differ slightly with that of the PCRA court,
(see Notice of Intention to Dismiss, 6/25/15, at 1), we observe that “[t]his
Court is not bound by the rationale of the [PCRA] court, and we may affirm
the [PCRA] court on any basis.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d
609, 617 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 87 A.3d 320 (Pa. 2014)
(citation omitted).
-7-
Com. v. Aiello, R.
Combined Opinion