J-S62012-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANTOINE SAUNDERS :
:
Appellant : No. 34 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-1000272-1994
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2018
Antoine Saunders appeals from the order, entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing his petition filed pursuant
to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After
our review, we affirm.
On March 13, 1996, Saunders entered a guilty plea to first-degree
murder,1 and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On September 9,
2016, Saunders filed his first PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed
counsel for Saunders, who filed a Turner/Finley2 no-merit letter. The court
filed a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and on October
12, 2017, Saunders filed a response. On December 12, 2017, the PCRA court
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2505(a).
2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
J-S62012-18
dismissed Saunders’ petition as untimely. Saunders filed a pro se appeal, and,
on May 4, 2018, this Court remanded the case for disposition of counsel’s
motion to withdraw. On May 16, 2018, the PCRA court granted counsel’s
petition to withdraw.
Saunders raises eight issues on appeal. We have adopted the trial
court’s paraphrased recitation of the issues for the sake of clarity:
1. [Section 9711 of the Sentencing Code] is unconstitutionally
overbroad.
2. The trial court abused its discretion when it presumed that it
had the authorization to find Appellant guilty of first-degree
murder.
3. The Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct when
they impermissibly brought bills of information against Appellant,
charging him with first-degree murder, third-degree murder and
voluntary manslaughter.
4. Trial counsel was ineffective for advising Appellant to enter into
a guilty plea to an open charge of first-degree murder.
5. Whether a conviction that rests on the abuse of trial court
discretion, judicial misconduct, deliberate prosecutorial
misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel are time -barred
under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to
adequately inform Appellant of his right to a jury trial.
7. Whether Appellant’s guilty plea was involuntary.
8. Whether his sentence of life imprisonment is constitutional.
PCRA Court Opinion, 4/18/18, at 2.
Before addressing the merits of Saunders’ claims, this Court must
examine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA
petition. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). “Our
-2-
J-S62012-18
standard of review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the
evidence of record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824
A.2d 331, 333 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted).
A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date that the
judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment
of sentence “becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including
discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the
review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
Here, Saunders’ judgment of sentence became final on April 17, 1996,
when the time allowed for direct appeal had expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Thus, Saunders had one year, until April 17,
1997, to file any and all PCRA petitions. The instant petition, filed on
September 9, 2016, is manifestly untimely and cannot be reviewed unless
Saunders invokes an exception to the PCRA time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Saunders’ petition is untimely and he failed to plead or prove
any exception; therefore, his petition was properly denied. Accordingly, the
PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition. See Fahy, 737 A.2d
at 223. Having discerned no error of law, we affirm the order below. See
Wilson, 824 A.2d at 333.
Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S62012-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/2/18
-4-