J-S88021-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MICHAEL BARONI
Appellant No. 3480 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 5, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0000845-1982
BEFORE: OLSON, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JANUARY 23, 2017
Appellant, Michael Baroni, pro se appeals from the November 5, 2015
order dismissing, as untimely, his serial petition filed under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In January 1982, Appellant confessed to authorities that he set fire to
an inhabited apartment building. A three-month-old girl and her four-year-
old sister died as the result of the fire. In October 1982, following a jury
trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of second degree murder,
arson, and related offenses.1 In April 1983, Appellant was sentenced to two,
concurrent terms of life imprisonment to be followed by consecutive terms in
prison for the remaining offenses.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c), and 3301(a)(1), respectively.
-1-
J-S88021-16
On October 15, 2015, Appellant pro se filed the instant petition
asserting that the criminal informations relating to the second degree
murders were defective and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose his
sentence.2 Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, the instant
petition essentially claims that Appellant’s sentence is illegal. Appellant’s
Brief at 10-14. Therefore, his claim is subsumed into the PCRA. 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(2).
“Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within the
PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA's time limits or one of the
exceptions thereto.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 222 (Pa.
1999) (internal citations omitted). The timeliness of Appellant’s petition
implicates our jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in order to
address the merits of his claim. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930
A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, any petition for relief,
including second and subsequent petitions, must be filed within one year of
the date on which the judgment of sentence becomes final. Id. There are
three statutory exceptions:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of
interference by government officials with the presentation of the
____________________________________________
2
This is Appellant’s seventh petition. All of Appellant’s previous petitions
were dismissed as meritless or untimely including Appellant’s September
2014 petition, which this Court treated as a habeas corpus petition. See
Commonwealth v. Baroni, 125 A.3d 459 (Pa. Super. 2015) (table).
-2-
J-S88021-16
claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this
Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown
to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the
exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) 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 in
this section and has been held by that court to apply
retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke these
exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have
been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2). This Court’s standard of review
regarding an order denying a petition under the PCRA is whether the
determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and
is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa.
2007).
Appellant’s petition is untimely, and he has failed to argue or establish
an exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA.3 Consequently,
the PCRA court was without jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant’s
claims, and properly dismissed his petition. See Ragan, 932 A.2d at 1170.
____________________________________________
3
Appellant’s petition is patently untimely. Appellant’s judgment of sentence
became final on November 4, 1991, ninety days after our Supreme Court
denied his petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Baroni,
596 A.2d 153 (1991) (table); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). See
Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396, 398 (Pa. Super. 2002)
(recognizing that the one year grace period outlined in the 1995
amendments to the PCRA (i.e., January 16, 1996) does not apply to second
or subsequent petitions, regardless of when the first petition was filed.
-3-
J-S88021-16
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/23/2017
-4-