J-S56008-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ANILJAMAAL ROBERTS
Appellant No. 884 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order February 16, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010161-2012
BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE, AND PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2017
Aniljamaal Roberts appeals from the February 16, 2016 order denying
his PCRA petition. We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant facts as follows:
On June 26, 2012, Appellant and a friend were robbed at
gunpoint. After filling [sic] a police complaint regarding the
robbery, the two men left Northwest Detectives Division.
Appellant then retrieved his firearm and located the individuals
who had allegedly robbed them. Appellant and the friend found
the alleged assailants and exchanged gunfire near the
intersection of Ashmead and Rubicam Streets. Shortly
thereafter, police received a radio call for a person shot in the
area of 300 Ashmead Street, Philadelphia, PA. Within seconds of
the first radio call, a second radio call came in identifying two
black males, one wearing all black clothing and the other
wearing a red baseball hat and grey shirt.
Sergeant [Stacy] Harris testified that he encountered the
Appellant and his friend within ten (10) seconds of the radio call
near the motorcycle club on Penn Street and Belfield Avenue.
* Retired Senior Judge specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S56008-17
The motorcycle club is a gated location[,] but the door was open
when Sergeant Harris arrived. Once backup arrived, Sergeant
Harris entered with the additional officers through the open door
and saw Appellant in the kitchen wearing dark clothes. Sergeant
Harris testified that not only did the Appellant match the
information on the radio call in the vicinity[,] but [he] was
sweating and looked nervous.
Following a pat down for safety, Sergeant Harris found a
firearm on the Appellant . . . Appellant testified that he was
under the mistaken understanding that he had a valid license to
carry a firearm. He obtained a license to carry in October
2007[,] which did not expire until October 2012. Appellant also
testified that he was unaware of the letter sent by the
Philadelphia Police Department[,] dated July 3, 2009[,] which
revoked his license to carry based on his June 26, 2009 arrest
for possession of marijuana.
PCRA Court Opinion, 1/10/17, at 1-2.
Based on the foregoing, Appellant was charged with carrying a firearm
without a license and carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia. Appellant
filed a motion to suppress. Following a hearing on April 29, 2013, that
motion was denied. The matter proceeded immediately to trial. Following
trial, Appellant was found guilty of the aforementioned offenses. On June
17, 2013, the court imposed a sentence of nine to eighteen months
incarceration, plus two years probation. Appellant did not file an appeal.
On August 7, 2013, Appellant filed a timely, pro se, PCRA petition.
Appointed counsel then filed an amended PCRA petition on November 10,
2014. On February 16, 2016, the PCRA court denied the petition without a
hearing, and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He then complied with
the PCRA court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors
-2-
J-S56008-17
complained of on appeal, and the PCRA court authored a Rule 1925(a)
opinion. This matter is now ready for our review.
Appellant raises three questions for our consideration:
1. Whether the court incorrectly denied PCRA relief where due to
a motion to incorporate all relevant non-hearsay testimony,
the Appellant was never identified at trial as the person who
had been observed outside by a non-testifying eye-witness as
the person carrying or in possession of a firearm prior to his
arrest inside the motorcycle club, and where his attorney
provided ineffective assistance of counsel violating his
constitutional rights under the U.S. Const. Amend. IV, and
XIV and PA.Const. art. I, sec 9?
2. Whether the court incorrectly denied PCRA relief where the
trial court denied a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence
confiscated inside a private motorcycle club, particularly
where the club was open to members only, not open to the
general public, and not on a public street?
3. Whether the PCRA court erred in failing to find that the
Commonwealth failed to establish proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that Appellant knew he did not have a license to carry,
or that Appellant was adequately notified of his license
termination making him subject to criminal charges when the
notification letter sent out by the Police Department was
returned to the Police Department who took no further action
to notify Appellant of termination?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Before we address the issues raised, we must first determine whether
Appellant is eligible for relief. Eligibility for relief under the PCRA is governed
by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543, which reads in pertinent part:
(a) General rule.--To be eligible for relief under this
subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence all of the following:
-3-
J-S56008-17
(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime
under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the
time relief is granted:
(i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment,
probation or parole for the crime;
(ii) awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the
crime; or
(iii) serving a sentence which must expire before the
person may commence serving the disputed
sentence.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a).
We have previously observed, “[e]ligibility for relief under the PCRA is
dependent upon the petitioner currently serving a sentence of imprisonment,
probation, or parole for a crime.” Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754,
761-62 (Pa. 2013). Thus, “the denial of relief for a petitioner who has
finished serving his sentence is required by the plain language of the
statute.” Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997).
Instantly, our review of the record and of Appellant’s public docket
sheet reveals that he is no longer serving his sentence. Appellant was
sentenced to nine to eighteen months imprisonment, followed by two years
probation, on June 17, 2013. As such, Appellant’s term of imprisonment
expired on December 17, 2014. Accordingly, his term of probation expired
on December 17, 2016. Since Appellant is no longer serving a sentence of
imprisonment, probation, or parole for the firearms offenses at issue herein,
-4-
J-S56008-17
he is ineligible for PCRA relief. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9453(a)(1)(i); Turner, supra;
Ahlborn, supra. Hence, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/16/2017
-5-