J-S73039-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LEE RICHTER
Appellant No. 543 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000375-2010
CP-26-CR-0000466-2010
CP-26-CR-0000467-2010
CP-26-CR-0000549-2010
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LEE RICHTER
Appellant No. 544 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000375-2010
CP-26-CR-0000466-2010
CP-26-CR-0000467-2010
CP-26-CR-0000549-2010
J-S73039-16
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LEE RICHTER
Appellant No. 545 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000375-2010
CP-26-CR-0000466-2010
CP-26-CR-0000467-2010
CP-26-CR-0000549-2010
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LEE RICHTER
Appellant No. 546 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000375-2010
CP-26-CR-0000466-2010
CP-26-CR-0000467-2010
CP-26-CR-0000549-2010
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 04, 2016
-2-
J-S73039-16
Michael Richter appeals at the above caption numbers from an order
dismissing his petition for return of monies from his inmate account. We
consolidate these appeals and affirm.
Richter was charged with crimes in four cases in the Court of Common
Pleas of Fayette County (“common pleas court”) at Nos. 375-, 466-, 467-
and 549-2010. Three of the four cases have identical procedural
backgrounds. In Numbers 466-, 467-, and 549-2010, following a
consolidated trial, a jury found Richter guilty of two counts of theft by
unlawful taking or disposition, three counts of receiving stolen property and
three counts of criminal conspiracy.1 On September 21, 2010, the court
sentenced Richter to an aggregate term of 4½ - 9 years’ imprisonment. On
December 20, 2011, this Court affirmed Richter’s judgment of sentence on
direct appeal at 1633, 1634 and 1635 WDA 2010. He did not seek allowance
of appeal with our Supreme Court.
In 2012, Richter filed a PCRA petition in the common pleas court at
numbers 466-, 467- and 549-2010. On October 23, 2013, the court denied
the petition. Richter did not appeal. In 2014, Richter filed a second PCRA
petition alleging that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the
October 23, 2013 order denying his first PCRA petition. On February 9,
2015, the court granted Richter leave to appeal the October 23, 2013 order
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3921(a), 3925, and 903, respectively.
-3-
J-S73039-16
nunc pro tunc. Richter filed an appeal to this Court, which quashed the
appeal on August 12, 2015.
In Richter’s fourth case, No. 375-2010, a jury found him guilty of
robbery.2 On February 14, 2011, the common pleas court sentenced Richter
to 15 - 48 months’ imprisonment. On November 17, 2011, this Court
affirmed Richter’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal. He did not seek
allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court.
The matter presently at issue began on March 24, 2016, when Richter
filed a pro se motion in the common pleas court at Nos. 375-, 466-, 467-
and 549-2010 entitled “Motion To Stop Deductions And Return Of Monies
From Inmate Account Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 and [42] Pa.C.S. [§]
9726” (“Motion To Stop Deductions”). Richter alleged that at sentencing in
these cases, the court failed to determine whether Richter was capable of
paying his fines or costs and thus imposed an illegal sentence. Richter
requested that the court “enter an order that would cause the deductions
from his prison account to cease” and direct the Fayette County Clerk of
Courts to reimburse him for monies “that were deducted wrongfully”.
On March 29, 2016, the court denied Richter’s motion, reasoning that
Pennsylvania Act 84, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728, vested in the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections the authority to draft
guidelines for the collections of fines, costs and restitution from
state incarcerated inmates, those guidelines being implemented
____________________________________________
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(v).
-4-
J-S73039-16
at DC-ADM 005, Collection of Inmate Debts Procedures Manual
and provid[ing] for ‘payments of 20% of the inmate’s account
balance and monthly income for restitution, reparation, fees,
costs, fines and/or penalties associated with the criminal
proceedings.’
Brief For Appellant, at 4. On April 14, 2016, Richter filed a notice of appeal
to this Court.3 On the same date, the court ordered Richter to file a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within 21 days. On May 19, 2016, Richter filed
an untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, claiming that he did not learn
about the April 14, 2016 order until May 10, 2016. On May 20, 2016, in lieu
of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion, the court filed a statement relying on its March
29, 2016 order denying Richter’s motion to stop further deductions from his
inmate account.
Richter raises one issue in this appeal:
Did the trial court error by denying [the] relief requested to stop
20% deductions from [Richter’s] inmate account[,] where the
trial court failed to hold a hearing to determine whether or not
[Richter] could afford to pay the costs and fines prior to
sentencing[,] thus violating 42 P.A.C.S. § 9726 (b), (c), (d); and
Pa.R.Crim.P. 706?
We affirm the order denying Richter’s petition, but for different reasons than
those given by the common pleas court.
Richter’s petition below and brief in this Court challenge the legality of
his sentence. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269, 1270
____________________________________________
3
We docketed Richter’s appeal at four caption numbers to correspond to his
four cases in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County. As stated
above, we have consolidated these appeals for purposes of disposition.
-5-
J-S73039-16
(Pa.Super.2013) (en banc) (claim that sentencing court failed to consider
defendant’s ability to pay before imposing fines implicates legality of
sentence). Because the PCRA encompasses challenges to the legality of
sentence, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vii), we will treat Richter’s Motion To Stop
Deductions as a PCRA petition. Cf. Ingram v. Newman, 830 A.2d 1099,
1103 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction over
inmate’s challenge to deduction of funds from his inmate account; “[the]
alleged failure of the sentencing court to inquire into Ingram’s ability to pay
could be the basis for relief on direct appeal from the sentence or in a
postconviction application … But [the] alleged illegality of the underlying
sentence does not entitle Ingram to the remedies he seeks against [the
Department of Corrections] in this Court”).4
____________________________________________
4
Had Richter raised a different objection to the deductions from his inmate
account other than a challenge to the legality of his sentence, the
Commonwealth Court might have been the appropriate forum for this
litigation. In Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833 A.2d 151 (Pa.Super.2003), a
state inmate filed a motion with the court of common pleas, apparently
under the caption of his original criminal case, to stop Act 84 deductions
from his inmate account, and the motion was denied on its merits. On
appeal, we held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction,
because the defendant’s claim was in reality a civil action against a
Commonwealth agency, the DOC. Therefore, the Commonwealth court
enjoyed exclusive original jurisdiction for the defendant’s claim under 42
Pa.C.S. § 761(a). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Jackson, 858 A.2d 627
(Pa.Super.2004) (en banc), the defendant was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment in a state correctional facility, plus costs and restitution. The
DOC began deducting 20% of his earnings from an inmate account. The
defendant filed a pro se petition to stop the DOC from taking deductions.
The trial court denied the petition, finding it did not have jurisdiction to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-S73039-16
Before we address the merits of Richter’s claim, we must determine
whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction to review Richter’s petition.
We conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to review Richter’s petition
under the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
Section 9545 provides that a petition “including a second or
subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment
becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); accord Commonwealth v.
Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273, 1275 (Pa.Super.2003). No court has jurisdiction to
hear an untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d
1076, 1079 (Pa.Super.2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837
A.2d 1157, 1161 (Pa.2003)). A judgment is 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. § 9545(b)(3).
Three exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar provide for very limited
circumstances under which a court may excuse the late filing of a PCRA
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
consider the defendant's petition. On appeal, this Court affirmed based on
the reasoning in Danysh.
It does not appear that Danysh or Jackson involved a challenge to the
legality of sentence, because there is no mention that either defendant
claimed inability to pay fines, costs or restitution. This detail distinguishes
Danysh and Jackson from the present case, in which Richter claimed that
the trial court failed to assess whether he could pay his fines and costs, thus
raising a challenge to the legality of his sentence and bringing this matter
within the purview of the PCRA.
-7-
J-S73039-16
petition. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); Monaco, 996 A.2d at 1079. The late
filing of a petition will be excused if a petitioner alleges and proves:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the
result of interference by government officials with
the presentation of the 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). A petition invoking an exception to the
PCRA time bar must “be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have
been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Richter’s judgment of sentence in Nos. 466-, 467- and 549-2010
became final on January 19, 2012, his final day for seeking allowance of
appeal with our Supreme Court on direct appeal. The statute of limitations
for filing a PCRA petition expired on Monday, January 21, 2013.5 The
present PCRA petition, filed on March 24, 2016, is untimely on its face.
____________________________________________
5
January 19, 2013, one year after January 19, 2012, fell on a Saturday.
Therefore, Richter had until Monday, January 21, 2013 to file his PCRA
petition. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908.
-8-
J-S73039-16
Richter’s judgment of sentence in No. 375-2010 became final on
Monday, December 19, 2011, his final day for seeking allowance of appeal
with our Supreme Court on direct appeal. The statute of limitations for filing
a PCRA petition expired on December 19, 2012. The present PCRA petition,
filed on March 24, 2016, is untimely on its face.
None of the exceptions in section 9545(b)(i-iii) apply to this case.
Richter does not allege that the government interference or newly acquired
evidence exceptions in section 9545(b)(i-ii) apply to his case. Nor does he
invoke section 9545(b)(iii), which affords relief when the right in question is
a constitutional right that the United States Supreme Court or Pennsylvania
Supreme Court has held to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
For these reasons, both the common pleas court and this Court lack
jurisdiction over Richter’s petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/4/2016
-9-
Com. v. Richter, M.
Combined Opinion