J-S51013-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
THOMAS PINCKNEY
Appellant No. 3631 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0802161-1995
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., AND STEVENS, P.J.E.,*
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 17, 2017
Thomas Pinckney appeals from the order dismissing his third pro se
PCRA petition as untimely. We affirm.
The PCRA court ably set forth the following:
On September 13, 1995, following a jury trial presided
over by the Honorable Eugene H. Clarke, Jr., [Appellant] was
convicted of second-degree murder and criminal conspiracy. The
trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment
for the murder conviction and a lesser term of incarceration for
the remaining conviction. On December 31, 1997, the Superior
Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. [Commonwealth v.
Pinckney, 706 A.2d 1256 (Pa.Super. 1997) (unpublished
memorandum).] [Appellant] did not file a petition for allowance
of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On January 4, 1999, [Appellant] filed his first pro se PCRA
petition. Counsel was appointed and subsequently filed a
Turner/Finley no merit letter. On September 8, 1999, the
PCRA court issued an order denying the petition and permitted
counsel to withdraw. No appeal was pursued.
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S51013-17
On June 3, 2003, [Appellant] filed his second PCRA
petition. The PCRA court issued an order dismissing
[Appellant’s] petition as untimely on November 19, 2003. The
Superior Court affirmed the dismissal on August 5, 2004.
[Commonwealth v. Pinckney, 860 A.2d 1133 (Pa.Super.
2004) (unpublished memorandum).]
On July 31, 2014, [Appellant] filed the instant pro se,
hybrid PCRA/habeas corpus petition. [Appellant] filed a
supplemental PCRA petition on February 19, 2016[,] that was
reviewed jointly with his initial petition. Pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907, [Appellant] was
served notice of the PCRA court’s intention to dismiss his petition
on July 19, 2016. On October 19, 2016, the PCRA court
dismissed his PCRA petition as untimely. On November 14,
2016, the instant notice of appeal was timely filed to the
Superior Court.
PCRA Court Opinion, 1/25/17, at 1-2 (internal footnotes omitted). This
matter is now ready for our review.
Appellant raises three claims for our consideration:
(1) Did the Court Read and Review the Psychological and
Medical Brief submitted in Miller v. Alabama[, 567 U.S.
460 (2012).][?]
(2) Is [Appellant] part of the Protected Class under the
Constitution and Law of Pennsylvania[?]
(3) Under the Juvenile Act should [Appellant’s] case [have]
been submitted to Juvenile Court first[?]
Appellant’s brief at 2.
-2-
J-S51013-17
Before reaching the merits of this matter, we must first determine
whether it is properly before us.1 It is well-settled that all PCRA petitions,
including subsequent petitions, must be filed within one year of the date that
a defendant’s judgment becomes final, unless an exception to the one-year
time restriction is applicable. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). This time-bar is
jurisdictional in nature. Thus, if a PCRA petition is untimely, “neither this
Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition.” Commonwealth
v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Whether
a petition is timely is a question of law. As such, our standard of review is
de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Hudson,
156 A.3d 1194, 1197 (Pa.Super. 2017).
When a PCRA petition is untimely, the petitioner bears the burden of
pleading and proving that one of the statutory exceptions applies. Id. If no
exception applies, then the petition must be dismissed, as this Court cannot
consider its merits. Id. The PCRA reads, in relevant part, as follows:
(b) Time for filing petition.-
(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second
or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of
____________________________________________
1
Appellant styled the instant petition as a petition for habeas corpus relief
pursuant to the PCRA. It is undisputed that the trial court properly
considered this matter as arising under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v.
Turner, 65 A.3d 462, 465-466 (Pa.Super. 2013) (observing, “[u]nless the
PCRA could not provide for a potential remedy, the PCRA subsumes the writ
of habeas corpus.”).
-3-
J-S51013-17
the date the judgment of sentence becomes final,
unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves
that:
i. the failure to raise the claim previously was the
result of interference by the government officials
with the presentation of the claim in violation of the
Constitution or law of the United States;
ii. the facts upon which the claim is predicated were
unknown to the petition 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.
(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in
paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date
the claim could have been presented.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) and (2).
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on January 30,
1998, thirty days after this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and the
time for filing a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court
expired. See Commonwealth v. Pinckney, 860 A.2d 1133 (Pa.Super.
2004) (unpublished memorandum at *4). Therefore, Appellant had until
January 30, 1999, to file a timely PCRA petition. However, he filed the
instant petition on July 31, 2014, rendering this petition facially untimely. In
order for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction, Appellant must plead and
prove one of the three statutory exceptions detailed above.
-4-
J-S51013-17
Appellant alleges that his petition was timely pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(1)(ii) and (iii). In Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264
(Pa. 2007), our Supreme Court explained that subsection (b)(1)(ii) is
triggered “when 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.” Id. at 1270 (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 (b)(1)(ii)). Hence, it
concluded that where a petitioner pleads and proves both elements of the
exception, the PCRA court has jurisdiction over the claim. Appellant also
argues that his petition is based on a newly-recognized constitutional right.
That exception to the PCRA’s time-bar provides that a PCRA petition is
considered timely if it asserts a constitutional right recognized by our High
Court or the United States Supreme Court as applying retroactively. 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
In order to meet the timeliness exceptions, Appellant relies on
Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014), which held that
expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification was not per se
impermissible. He maintains that, since the Walker decision had not been
decided at the time of his trial, its holding represents a fact unknown to him.
In addition, he contends that Walker created a new constitutional right to
expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification. Finally, since Walker
was decided on May 28, 2014, and Appellant filed his PCRA petition on July
-5-
J-S51013-17
31, 2014, he avers that he invoked his exceptions within the timeframe
dictated by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Instantly, this Court has recognized that judicial decisions cannot be
considered newly-discovered facts for the purposes of overcoming the PCRA
statutory time-bar. Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759, 763
(Pa.Super. 2013) (noting, “Our Courts have expressly rejected the notion
that judicial decisions can be considered newly-discovered facts which would
invoke the protections afforded by section 9545(b)(1)(ii).”). Moreover, the
High Court in Walker, supra, did not purport to establish a constitutional
right to expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification, but rather, it
found that, in light of increases in scientific understanding on the topic and
developments in case law, a per se ban on such testimony was “too extreme
an approach in determining whether relevant testimony should be admitted
in this area.” Walker, supra at 791. Instead, the High Court left the
admission of such evidence to the discretion of the trial court. As Appellant
has not pled and proven an exception to the PCRA’s statutory time-bar, the
PCRA court properly concluded that his petition was untimely.2
____________________________________________
2
In his supplemental PCRA petition, Appellant raises a claim that his
sentence of life imprisonment without parole violates the Supreme Court’s
ruling in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). We have previously held
that Miller does not satisfy the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(1)(iii) when applied to persons who were eighteen years of age or
older when the committed their crimes. Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-S51013-17
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/17/2017
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
A.3d 759, 764 (Pa.Super. 2013). Although, Appellant did not present his
claim pursuant to Miller as an exception to the statutory time bar, such a
claim would fail since he was nineteen at the time he committed his crimes.
-7-