J-S64013-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CLINTON DUNN
Appellant No. 543 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0009554-2009
BEFORE: STABILE, SOLANO, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2016
Appellant, Clinton Dunn, appeals pro se from the January 29, 2016
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“PCRA
court”), denying his petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the procedural background of this matter
as follows.
On March 14, 2011, [Appellant] voluntarily,
intelligently, and knowingly entered a negotiated guilty
plea to the charges of Unlawful Contact with a Minor (F1),
Statutory Sexual Assault (F2), Incest (F2), and Corruption
of Minors (M1) on bill of information CP-51-CR-0009554-
2009. Following the plea, [the PCRA court] imposed the
negotiated sentence of 2.5-5 years of incarceration on the
Corruption of Minors charge and deferred the remainder of
sentencing until October 14, 2011 for the completion of
the report by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board. On
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64013-16
October 14, 2011, [the PCRA court] found [Appellant] to
be a sexually violent predator and subsequently imposed
the negotiated aggregate sentence of 17.5-50 years of
incarceration.
On March 28, 2013, [Appellant] filed an untimely
PCRA petition. PCRA counsel was appointed and, on June
10, 2014, counsel filed a Finley Letter. The matter was
first listed before [the PCRA] court for decision on July 30,
2014. On July 31, 2014, following a review of the record,
[the PCRA] court sent [Appellant] a 907 Notice, pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). [The PCRA] court did not receive
any response to the 907 Notice and on September 26,
2014, [the PCRA] court dismissed the PCRA petition.
On December 5, 2014, December 10, 2014, and
June 24, 2015, respectively, [Appellant] filed three
additional untimely PCRA petitions. On December 4, 2015,
following a review of the record, [the PCRA] court sent
[Appellant] a 907 Notice, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
907(1). [The PCRA] court received [Appellant’s] response
to the 907 Notice on December 16, 2015. On January 29,
2016, [the PCRA] court dismissed the PCRA petition.
PCRA Court Opinion, 1/29/2016, at 1-2.
Appellant filed the instant appeal on February 9, 2016. In lieu of
directing Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on
appeal, the PCRA court issued an opinion on February 22, 2016.
On appeal, Appellant raises one issue, “did the [PCRA] court error in
failing to apply one of the timely exceptions enunciated in 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(b)(i-iii) on the grounds that an unconstitutional guilty plea/sentence
cannot be enforced under a republic form of government (constitutional).”
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
“[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of fact to
determine whether they are supported by the record, and reviews its
conclusions of law to determine whether they are free from legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014). All PCRA
-2-
J-S64013-16
petitions, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within
one year of the date the judgment becomes final” unless an exception to
timeliness applies. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “The PCRA’s time
restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is
untimely, neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction over the
petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to
address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d
520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (first alteration in original) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
The PCRA provides for three exceptions to the timeliness requirement
of filing within one year of the date the judgment becomes final. The
exceptions are
(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.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).
While Appellant’s issue is the trial court’s purported failure to apply a
timeliness exception to the PCRA, Appellant fails to develop this argument in
-3-
J-S64013-16
his brief, rather he discusses the merits of his underlying claims. Appellant
did not file a direct appeal of the judgment of sentence entered in this
matter; therefore, his judgment became final on November 13, 2011.
Appellant’s petition is clearly untimely and he has not plead, nor argued in
his brief that any of the exceptions apply. Because Appellant addressed only
the merits of the petition, but not its timeliness, we conclude Appellant’s
petition is untimely.1 We direct that a copy of the PCRA court’s January 29,
2016 opinion be filed along with this Memorandum.
Order affirmed. Motions for leave to supplement the record denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/13/2016
____________________________________________
1
Appellant filed a motion for leave to supplement the record on July 22,
2016, and November 14, 2016. These motions are hereby denied.
-4-
Circulated 10/27/2016 02:30 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMM