J-S63042-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
KAREEM ALI GARRETT
Appellant No. 1684 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 14, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001998-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD,* J.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2016
Appellant, Kareem Ali Garrett, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas denying his first Post
Conviction Relief Act1 (“PCRA”) petition. This Court previously remanded
this matter for a determination as to whether Appellant is currently serving a
sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole for the crimes he committed.
The PCRA court has supplemented the record with a letter it received from
the Delaware County Adult Probation and Parole Services indicating
Appellant’s maximum sentence in the above captioned case expired on
March 12, 2015. We conclude Appellant has not established his eligibility for
PCRA relief and affirm.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
42 Pa.C.S §§ 9541-9546.
J-S63042-16
The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history
as follows:
On August 20, 2013, [Appellant] entered a negotiated
guilty plea to [d]efiant [t]respass and one count of
[h]arassment and was sentenced to a term of 6 to 12
months[’ imprisonment] followed by 1 year of probation.
On August 21, 2014 [Appellant] filed a timely [PCRA]
petition alleging (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2)
that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced, and (3) newly-
discovered evidence.
The [PCRA court] appointed counsel, Stephen D.
Molineux, Esq., to review [Appellant’s] PCRA petition.
Pursuant to [Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927
(Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213
(Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc)] , counsel submitted a “No
Merit” letter after determining [Appellant’s] PCRA petition
was meritless and filed a Motion to Withdraw As Counsel.
This Court dismissed [Appellant’s] PCRA petition without
holding an evidentiary hearing and granted Mr. Molineux’s
Withdrawal Motion. [Appellant] filed a timely Notice of
Appeal and Concise Statement of Matters complained of on
Appeal in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Trial Ct. Op., 7/31/15, at 1-2.
On October 26, 2016, this Court remanded the matter for a
determination of whether Appellant was still serving his sentence. In
response, the PCRA court supplemented the record with a letter, dated
November 1, 2016, from Thomas Hart, a pre-parole investigator with the
county’s probation and parole department. The letter, in full, stated, “Please
be advised that the maximum on docket 1998-13 expired on 3/12/15 and
the case was closed while [Appellant] was incarcerated at the SCI Houtzdale
serving a sentence under docket 3224-09.” Letter, 11/1/16.
-2-
J-S63042-16
Pursuant to the PCRA, a petitioner must “at the time relief is granted”
be “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for
the crime” or waiting to serve the disputed sentence. 42 Pa.C.S. §
9543(a)(1)(i), (iii). Further, as soon as a petitioner’s sentence is complete,
he becomes ineligible for relief, regardless of whether he was serving his
sentence at the time he filed his PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Hart,
911 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006). Indeed, our Supreme Court has held
that to grant relief at a time when a petitioner is not currently serving a
sentence would ignore the plain language of the statute. Commonwealth
v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997). Accordingly, if a petitioner is no
longer serving or waiting to serve a sentence for the crimes at issue, our
Courts lack jurisdiction and the petitioner’s PCRA petition must be dismissed.
Id.
In this case, Appellant was convicted in August 2013 and sentenced to
serve a term of six to twelve months’ imprisonment followed by one year of
probation. We note that in his initial PCRA petition Appellant indicated that
his sentence was to commence on August 20, 2013, but did not designate
whether he was currently serving, or waiting to serve, his sentence.
Appellant’s Mot. for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, 8/21/14, at 2.
Moreover, Appellant’s brief was not mailed from a prison. See Certificate of
Service, 3/11/16, to Appellant’s Brief (identifying address).
-3-
J-S63042-16
Thus, Appellant has not established he was still serving his sentence,
and the record compiled by the PCRA court suggests that Appellant’s
sentence expired during the litigation of the instant PCRA petition.
Therefore, we conclude Appellant failed to prove a threshold requirement of
eligibility for relief under the PCRA and affirm on that basis. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(1)(i), (iii); Ahlborn, 699 A.2d at 720; Hart, 911 A.2d at 942;
see also Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987, 991 n.8 (Pa. Super.
2004) (“we may affirm the decision of denial [of PCRA relief] if it is correct
on any basis”).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/16/2016
-4-