J-S01037-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
STEVEN D. GEBHART :
:
Appellant : No. 1099 MDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 30, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005854-2008,
CP-67-CR-0007763-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 06, 2018
Appellant, Steven D. Gebhart, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the York County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his serial petition
for collateral relief (labeled as motions for various relief) per the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. At Docket
No. 5854-2008, a jury convicted Appellant on November 17, 2010, of theft
by deception, corrupt organizations, and deceptive business practices. On
February 4, 2011, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 4.3
to 8.6 years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on
September 22, 2014, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on
April 1, 2015. See Commonwealth v. Gebhart, 107 A.3d 232 (Pa.Super.
2014) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 631 Pa. 735, 113 A.3d
278 (2015). Appellant sought no further direct review. So, the judgment of
J-S01037-18
sentence at Docket No. 5854-2008 became final on June 30, 2015.
At Docket No. 7763-2009, a jury convicted Appellant on November 3,
2011, of insurance fraud. On December 21, 2011, the court sentenced
Appellant to an aggregate term of 9 months to 5 years’ incarceration, plus
restitution, consecutive to the sentence at Docket No. 5854-2008. This
Court affirmed on February 15, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Gebhart, 68
A.3d 364 (Pa.Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant sought
no further direct review. So, the judgment of sentence at Docket No. 7763-
2009 became final on March 17, 2013. In 2014, Appellant filed his first
PCRA petition at Docket No. 7763-2009, which was ultimately unsuccessful.
In 2016, Appellant filed at both docket numbers a PCRA petition—his first at
Docket No. 5854-2008 and his second at Docket No. 7763-2009—which was
also ultimately unsuccessful.
On May 10, 2017, Appellant filed at both docket numbers several pro
se motions, including: “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Newly Discovered Evidence;” “Motion for Original Jurisdiction;” and “Motion
for Quash.” The PCRA court deemed the motions collectively as his second
PCRA petition at Docket No. 5854-2008 and his third PCRA petition at
Docket No. 7763-2009. The PCRA court denied Appellant relief in an order
dated May 30, 2017, and mailed to Appellant on May 31, 2017. On June 30,
2017, Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, per the prisoner
mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa.Super.
-2-
J-S01037-18
2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012) (explaining prisoner
mailbox rule provides that document is considered filed on date pro se
prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing). The PCRA court
ordered Appellant, on July 7, 2017, to file a Rule 1925(b) statement;
Appellant timely complied on August 1, 2017, and filed an amended
statement on August 3, 2017.
Preliminarily, a petition for post-conviction collateral relief will
generally be considered a PCRA petition, even if captioned as a request for
habeas corpus relief, if the petition raises issues cognizable under the PCRA.
See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638 (1998); 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (stating PCRA shall be sole means of obtaining collateral
relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for
same purpose). The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional
requisite. Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013),
appeal denied, 625 Pa. 649, 91 A.3d 162 (2014). A PCRA petition must be
filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at the conclusion of
direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(3). The exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow for very limited
circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused; a
petitioner asserting an exception must file a petition within 60 days of the
date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2).
-3-
J-S01037-18
Instantly, Appellant appears to assert, inter alia, the trial courts lacked
jurisdiction and he recently discovered new evidence related to his
convictions. Appellant’s claims are cognizable under the PCRA. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi), (viii). So, the court properly treated Appellant’s
pro se motions collectively as a PCRA petition. See Peterkin, supra.
Nevertheless, at Docket No. 7763-2009, Appellant’s judgment of sentence
became final on March 17, 2013, upon expiration of the time to file a petition
for allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a). At
Docket No. 5854-2008, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on
June 30, 2015, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. Appellant filed
the current, pro se serial petition for collateral relief on May 10, 2017, which
is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Though Appellant
appears to claim he has newly-discovered evidence, he failed to plead and
prove any of the exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. See id. Therefore,
Appellant’s petition remains time-barred, and the PCRA court lacked
jurisdiction to review it. See Turner, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.1
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1 Due to our disposition, we deny as moot Appellant’s open “Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order,” “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” and
“Motion for Expedition.”
-4-
J-S01037-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 02/06/2018
-5-