J-S37033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DANIEL L. SPUCK
Appellant No. 1702 WDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-17-CR-0000396-1995
*****
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DANIEL L. SPUCK
Appellant No. 1703 WDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 1, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-17-CR-0000396-1995
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 21, 2016
Daniel L. Spuck appeals, pro se, from the orders entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, dismissing his “Motion to Vacate
Judgment of Sentence/Motion to Set Aside Mandatory Minimum Sentence”
and “Defendant’s Permission to Amend His Amended PCRA” as untimely
J-S37033-16
petitions filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546 (“PCRA”). Although for a different reason than stated by the PCRA
court, we affirm.
In 1996, Spuck was convicted of third-degree murder and related
crimes following the stabbing death of Michael Allen Cramer and Spuck’s ex-
wife. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence in 1998 and our
Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. Since that time, Spuck “has
sought collateral review on umpteen occasions.” Commonwealth v.
Spuck, Nos. 692 & 693 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed 12/14/15) (unpublished
memorandum).
Relevant to the disposition of this appeal, on February 2, 2015, Spuck
filed a Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief. On April 8, 2015, Spuck
filed two documents, styled as “Pro Se Motion for Contempt Upon the
Clearfield County District Attorney” and “Motion Requesting the Testing of
Blood and DNA,” which were properly construed by the PCRA court as having
been filed pursuant to the PCRA. By orders dated March 25, 2015 and April
8, 2015, respectively, those petitions were all dismissed. Spuck filed a
timely appeal of both orders.
While the March 25, 2015 and April 8, 2015 orders were on appeal
before this Court, on July 27, 2015, Spuck filed a “Motion to Vacate
Judgment of Sentence/Motion to Set Aside Mandatory Minimum Sentence,”
which the PCRA court properly treated as a PCRA petition. The court
dismissed that petition by order dated September 2, 2015. On September
-2-
J-S37033-16
11, 2015, Spuck filed a document entitled “Defendant’s Permission to Amend
his Amended PCRA,” which the PCRA court dismissed that same date. The
current appeal is from the September 2, 2015 and September 11, 2015
orders.
“[W]hen an appellant’s PCRA appeal is pending before a court, a
subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of the
pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review is sought,
or upon the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000). See also
Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 320 (Pa. 2010) (citing Lark for the
proposition that “as [a] matter of jurisdiction, [a] PCRA court cannot
entertain new PCRA claims or [a] new PCRA petition when [a] prior petition
is still under review on appeal”).
Spuck filed the PCRA petitions that are the subject of the instant
appeal on July 27, 2015 and September 11, 2015, while the March 25, 2015
and April 8, 2015 orders of the PCRA court remained pending on appeal.
Under Lark, the filings were impermissible. Accordingly, the PCRA court did
not err in dismissing them.1
Orders affirmed.
____________________________________________
1
Although Spuck’s July 27, 2015 petition was dismissed by the PCRA court
as untimely, and not as impermissible under Lark, we may affirm a decision
of the PCRA court on any basis. Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d
118, 124 (Pa. Super. 2014).
-3-
J-S37033-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/21/2016
-4-