Com. v. Spuck, D.

J-S83040-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : DANIEL L. SPUCK, : :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. 733 WDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order April 7, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-17-CR-0000396-1995 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2016 Daniel L. Spuck (Appellant) appeals from the April 7, 2016 order that denied his serial petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. In 1996, Appellant was convicted of third-degree murder and other crimes. This Court affirmed Appellant’s resulting judgment of sentence on February 27, 1998, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on October 1, 1998. Commonwealth v. Spuck, 714 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Super. 1998) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 729 A.2d 1128 (Pa. 1998). Since 1998, Appellant has sought collateral review on many occasions. The dismissal of three of Appellant’s prior PCRA petitions was affirmed by this Court in December 2015, with reargument denied in February 2016. *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S83040-16 Commonwealth v. Spuck, 135 A.3d 659 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum), reargument denied (Feb. 25, 2016). On March 28, 2016, Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal in those cases. Appellant filed the PCRA petition that is the subject of the instant appeal on April 4, 2016, while the petition for allowance of appeal was still pending in our Supreme Court. “[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 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”). Accordingly, the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s April 4, 2016 PCRA petition. Order affirmed. -2- J-S83040-16 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/29/2016 -3-