J-S63041-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ERASMO M. PIEDRA
Appellant No. 2926 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 15, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division
at No(s):
CP-15-CR-0001234-2007
CP-15-CR-0001882-2007
CP-15-CR-0001922-2007
CP-15-CR-0001966-2007
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD,* J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
Pro se Appellant, Erasmo M. Piedra, appeals from the order dismissing
his second Post Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”) petition as untimely. We
affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the PCRA court’s
opinions. See Rule 1925 Second Supplemental Op., 10/22/15, at 1-2; Rule
1925 Supplemental Op., 10/19/15, at 1-3; see also Order, 9/15/15, at 2
n.1.; see generally Commonwealth v. Piedra, 595 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.
Dec. 4, 2013) (affirming denial of Appellant’s first PCRA petition);
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S63041-16
Commonwealth v. Piedra, 323 EDA 2009 (Pa. Super. Oct. 5, 2010)
(affirming Appellant’s direct appeal). As noted by the PCRA court,
Appellant’s second petition, docketed on May 15, 2015, raised only one
issue: a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Following a
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, Appellant filed a pro se response raising one
additional issue: a claim that his sentence was illegal under Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). The court formally dismissed
Appellant’s petition on September 15, 2015. Appellant timely appealed and
timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement raising a host of
additional issues that were not raised in his original petition or response to
the Rule 907 notice.2
Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s two preserved claims, we
examine whether we have jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737
A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). “Our standard of review of a PCRA court’s
dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA
court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of
legal error.” Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super.
2003) (en banc) (citation omitted). A PCRA petition “must normally be filed
within one year of the date the judgment becomes final . . . unless one of
the exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies and the petition is filed within
2
It is well-settled those additional issues are waived because they were not
first presented to the PCRA court. See Pa.R.A.P. 302.
-2-
J-S63041-16
60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” Commonwealth
v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. 2007) (citations and footnote
omitted).
After careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the decision
by the PCRA court, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s reasoning.
See PCRA Ct. Order, 9/15/15, at 2 n.1; Order, 7/9/15, at 2 n.1 (holding (1)
Appellant failed to plead and prove any one of the three timeliness
exceptions to the one-year time bar; (2) challenge to discretionary aspects
of sentence is not cognizable under PCRA; and (3) Alleyne does not apply
retroactively to Appellant’s case, as his judgment of sentence became final
well before Alleyne was issued); see also Commonwealth v.
Washington, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2016 WL 3909088 at *8 (Pa. July 19,
2016) (holding, “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on
collateral review”). Having discerned no abuse of discretion or error of law,
we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/27/2016
-3-
Circulated 09/02/2016 01:22 PM
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO. CP-15-CR-0001234-2007;1882-
2007; 1922-07; 1966-2007
ERASMO M. PIEDRA
Appellant CRIMINAL ACTION 1;\., \· '_
\,.- _.
,.f)
Nicholas J. Casenta, Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Commonweahli ,· ,
Erasmo M. Piedra, prose, HS-1040, SCI- Pine Grove . ,
)
, '
·-,_.-·-· ..
~ {.} .i
Nagle, S.J. October 19, 2015
RULE 1925 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
We write briefly to address Appellant, Erasmo Piedra's second,
untimely PCRA Petition. Appellant filed his second pro se PCRA petition
on May 15, 2015. As discussed in the footnote to our Notice of Intent to
Dismiss his second PCRA Petition filed pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P.
907(1), Appellant had until March 30, 2012 to file a timely PCRA petition
seeking collateral relief. His first PCRA petition, while timely, was
dismissed following hearing, and our determination was affirmed on
appeal by the Superior Court on December 4, 2013. Commonwealth v.
Piedra, No. 595 EDA 2013.
We append our Notice to Dismiss Appellant's second PCRA
petition to this Opinion for the Superior Court's convenience, in which we
advised Appellant his second Petition was untimely, and that his claim as
expressed in his second Petition was not cognizable under the PCRA.
Appellant responded to our Notice on July 20, 2015, in which he raised
the alleged illegality of his aggregate sentence based upon Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013), and his presumed
entitlement to relief thereunder. On September 15, 2015, we issued our
footnoted Order dismissing his second PCRA, in which we addressed
again the untimeliness of his second Petition and discussed the
inapplicability of Alleyne to Appellant's collateral appeal. We append a
copy of our Dismissal Order to the instant Opinion for the Superior
Court's convenience.
Appellant filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal on September 28,
2015. Because the grounds for the instant appeal are clearly expressed
in Appellant's Response to our Notice of Intent to Dismiss his second
Petition, and reasons for our doing so are detailed in our footnoted Order
and Notice, we did not require Appellant to file a Concise Statement of
Errors Complained of on Appeal. We note that Appellant is not entitled to
the appointment of counsel in a second untimely PCRA petition that does
2
I!
I I
t'li
not require an evidentiary hearing. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 965
I[ 2002); See also. Pa. R.Cr.P. 904(c).
u
f
I
l
11
I!
l
Ii! i
'I
IIii
!t
II I
It
11
iiI;
Ii. I
11
11
!i
11
ii
11
j i
Il
il
ii! ! 3
,::.-;~,:-- 10/??/ZQ.it· i~. 42
i I
S:\Admin\NAGLE\Piedra, Erasmo, 2nd PCRA, NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS PCRA
PETITION.Docx
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO. CP-l5-CR-0001234-2007; 1882-2007;
1922-07; 1966-2007
,... ,
ERASMO PIEDRA
ci··:· e.,1 :u
Appellant CRIMINAL ACTION
::i: 1'1')
1 ··:
:n..
C.-
c~- rn
u,::; ' C>
1
:-n~~?
·:,:J • ~
vo rr1
-~-u:,J.
Nicholas J. Casenta, Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Commonwealth: g ::~·)>
::E:
, .
,,'
tfl
Erasmo Piedra, pro se :---~,~"J:)
- -- -
).;..~ ~,-~{
.....
____.
t:J
. l/)
OJ
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS PCRA PETITION
PURSUANT TO Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1)
AND NOW, this __ q_· -=-·J_H_, _ day of July. 2015. upon consideration of
Erasmo Piedra's 2nd PCRA petition, filed on May 15, 2015, it appearing to
the Court the Petition is not timely filed, and that no exception to the time
requirement has been pled, and, further, that the claim asserted implicates
a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing, which is not
cognizable under the Post Conviction Relief Act, this 'Court finds that it has
no jurisdiction to consider the Petition, and, further, if jurisdiction existed,
there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact that require
determination in an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that the
Defendant/Petitioner, Erasmo Piedra (the "Defendant") is not entitled to
post-conviction collateral relief, and that no purpose would be served by
any further proceedings. As required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1 ), the Court
having so determined, the Defendant is hereby given NOTICE of the
Court's intent to dismiss the Defendant's 2nd PCRA petition.
The Defendant may respond to this NOTICE in writing within twenty
(20) days of the docketing of this Order. If the Defendant has not so
responded, a subsequent Order will be entered by the Court dismissing the
Defendant's PCRA petition. That subsequent Order shall be a final
appealable Order disposing of the Defendant's PCRA petition.
If the Defendant responds in writing to this NOTICE, the Court will
either: dismiss Defendant's PCRA petition; if warranted, grant him leave to
file an amended petition; or, if warranted, direct that further proceedings be
held.
The Clerk of Courts of Chester County is ORDERED to serve a copy
of this Notice of Intent to Dismiss Defendant's PCRA petition on
the following:
(a) The District Attorney of Chester County.
(b) Defendant, Erasmo Piedra, SCI Pine Grove, 191 Fyock Road,
Indiana, PA 15701 by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.1
Ronald C. Nagle
1
On May 23, 2008, Defendant was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of possession
with intent to deliver a controlled substance and other drug-related charges. He
appealed the-judgment of sentence to-Superior Court, which affirmed. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocator on March 30, 2011. Commonwealth v.
Piedra, 15 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super., 2010, appeal denied, 610 Pa. 584, 19 A.3d 516
(2011). Accordingly, Defendant had until March 30, 2012 to file a PCRA petition seeking
collateral relief. On March 30, 2012 Defendant filed a timely PCRA petition, and an
amended petition on May 24, 2012, which we denied following hearing. The Superior
Court affirmed dismissal of the petition on December 4, 2013. No 595 EDA 2013. lf the
PCRA petition is determined to be untimely, and no exception is pied and proven, the
petition must be dismissed without hearing because Pennsylvania courts are without
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d
516 (Pa. Super., 2011), appeal denied, 47 A.3d 845 (Pa., 2012). Instantly, Defendant's
petition does not aver an exception to the PCRA's time requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§9545.
Further, even were the petition timely, Defendant's petition challenges the discretionary
aspects of his sentence, claiming his crimes, collectively considered, constituted his first
drug offence, and that the sentence imposed was an abuse of the court's discretion.
Challenges to discretionary aspects of sentence that do no implicate the legality of
sentence are not cognizable under the PCRA, Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d
1287 (Pa.Super.,2007)
. i
S:\Admin\NAGLE\Pk .,.a, Erasmo, Order, 2nd PCRA, Response tc , .otlce of Intent to Dismiss.docx
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO. CP-15-CR-0001234-2007;1882-
2007; 1922-07; 1966-2007
ERASMO M. PIEDRA r-...>
t. ~.-:,
CRIMINAL ACTION --/~~
Appellant
-..-·:·:·: r~·:::i! c.ri
U'J
>)
nr : ':1
. ..···-
,) '
··,:, '"•
,f
'-v ~,
Nicholas J, Casenta, Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Commonwealtp:::: Vl '
. .,.,,,
:~
Erasmo M. Piedra, prose, HS-1040, SCI- Pine Grove ·.:., c-'. -::i
,,.
.._...
. :c . :I:
; ;
I'" ., ...4
.,»
1-::)
ORDER OF COURT ...
AND NOW, this / 61'h. day of September, 2015 the
Petitioner/Defendant, Erasmo Piedra's second PCRA Petition, filed on
May 15, 2015 is hereby DISMISSED1.
-· - . --- --·
The Petitioner/Defendant is advised that this is a final Order
disposing of his second PCRA petition, and that he has thirty (30) days
from the date of this Order to file an appeal to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, with the Clerk of Courts of Chester County.
The Clerk of Courts of Chester County is ORDERED to serve a
copy of this Order upon the following:
(a) District Attorney of Chester County.
(b) Defendant - by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
COURT:
({Jlt,/l!ffl
Ronald C. Nagle
1
Petitioner, Erasmo Piedra responded on July 20, 2015 to this court's Notice
of Intent to dismiss his second PCRA Petition. Petitioner's second petition advanced
the claim that the aggregate sentence we imposed of 17 to 30 years imprisonment
was an abuse of discretion and greater than the lawful maximum because his
criminal conduct was comprised of a series of drug offenses originating out of a
single criminal enterprise for which he was collectively tried, and should, therefore,
have collectively "constituted his first drug offense". PCRA Petition, para. 5(A). We
advised Petitioner that his second petition was untimely, and that his petition did not'
aver an exception to the PCRA's one-year limitations period.
In his Response to the court's Notice of Intent to Dismiss, Petitioner expressly
raises a challenge to the legality of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §7508 under which he was
sentenced, claims as a consequence he is serving an illegal sentence, seeks leave
to amend his petition to permit a challenge to his sentence pursuant to Alleyne, infra,
and invokes the applicability of the PCRA's 60-day time-bar statutory exception to the
one-year jurisdictional time bar. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(2). A PCRA petition invoking
one of the statutory exceptions must "be filed within 60 days of the date the claim
could have been presented". Petitioner's Response does identify the Section 9545
exception that is alleged to apply to his case or the factual basis supporting the
exception. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
Petitioner was sentenced under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(iii), including 4
separate mandatory minimum sentences imposed following his conviction by a jury
arising from separate Informations charging PWID. Section 7508 has subsequently
been held to be unconstitutional. See Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 7 48 (Pa.
Super., 2014). Petitioner now seeks PCRA relief on a claim premised upon the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United Stales, 133 S.Ct. 2151,
2155 (2013) (holding that, to comply with dictates of the Sixth Amendment, facts that
increase a mandatory minimum sentence are elements of the offense and must be
submitted to the jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt), and several
subsequently issued Pennsylvania appellate court decisions applying Alleyne.
Petitioner did not raise an Alleyne claim in hoc verba in his second PCRA petition.
Although illegal sentencing issues cannot be waived, they still must be presented in a
timely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737 A.2d 214 (1999).
The filing mandates of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and are strictly
construed. Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 959 A.2d 306, 309 (2008). The
procedural Rules contemplate that amendments to pending PCRA petitions are to be
"freely allowed to achieve substantial justice." Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A). However, even
were Petitioner permitted to amend his petition to plead an exception to the one-year
time bar, Alleyne and its Pennsylvania progeny would not apply retroactively to
Petitioner's case since it was not pending on direct appeal when Alleyne was issued.
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86(Pa. Super., 2014). On direct appeal, the
Superior Court affirmed Petitioner's judgment of sentence on October 5, 2010, and
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocator on March 30, 2011, well before the
decision in Alleyne was issued. Commonwealth v. Piedra, 15 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super.,
2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 584, 19 A.3d 1050 (2011).
The exception set forth in Section 9545(b((1)(iii), which presumably Petitioner
is asserting, applies only where "the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania after the time period provided for in this section and has been held by
that court to apply retroactively" . Neither the United States Supreme Court nor our
Supreme Court has held that Alleyne applies retroactively to cases on collateral
review. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super., 2014).
Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's second PCRA petition
because it is facially untimely to which no exception to the time -bar applies.
S:\Admin\NAGLE\Appeals\PIEDRA Erasmo 2nd Supp 1925 opinion Sur
2nd PCRA petition.docx
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO. CP-15-CR-0001234-2007;:1882-.·
2007; 1922-07; 1966-209/ . ': :\
.\_'//,·'. \
.,
ERASMO M. PIEDRA :
.\
Appellant CRIMINAL ACTION '>
( i
_; .. ····
.-
Nicholas J. Casenta, Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Commonwealth .. ) . ·,·,
Erasmo M. Piedra, prose, HS-1040, SCI- Pine Grove en
Nagle, S.J. October 19, 2015
RULE 1925 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
We write briefly to supplement our Rule 1925 Supplemental
Opinion issued on October 19, 2015. On October 21, 2015, we received
in chambers, via the Clerk of Courts' office, Appellant's Concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. I have reviewed the
statement issued by Appellant, in which he raises multiple issues not
previously raised in this second PCRA petition. In addition to the issues
raised in his second PCRA petition, Appellant's concise statement now
raises for the first time additional claims, including those challenging the
constitutionality of the PCRA statute with respect to the 60-day exception
to the one-year filing requirement, and the statute's alleged disparate
impact on illiterate, non- English speaking petitioners. See 42 Pa. C.S.A.
§9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). We find it unnecessary to address those and the other
issues raised in the Concise Statement since we are without jurisdiction
to do so. We have previously addressed the time limitations applicable to
Petitioner's second PCRA petition, and have concluded his petition is
untimely filed. 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. This rule applies regardless of the nature of
the individual claims asserted. Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16-
17 (Pa. 2012) (case citations and footnote omitted). Further, as the
issues raised in the Concise Statement were not raised in Appellant's
second PCRA, or in his response to our Notice to Dismiss, I respectfully
submit those Errors Complained of on Appeal are waived. See
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
~.
,/,/!~/'
S.J.
2