Com. v. Santos, M.

J-S48042-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

MARCUS T. SANTOS,

Appellant No. 44 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order December 12, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No.: CP-22-CR-0003262-2009

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2014

Appellant, Marcus T. Santos, appeals pro se from the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the fines imposed in his judgment of sentence as excessive. We affirm.

On March 9, 2010, Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance and one count of criminal use of a communication facility. The trial court accepted the negotiated guilty plea and imposed an aggregate term of incarceration of not less than ten nor more than twenty years plus fines and costs totaling $110,250.00. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S48042-14

On March 10, 2011, Appellant timely filed a pro se petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw after 2011, the PCRA court granted the motion to withdraw and issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1). Appellant did not respond, and the PCRA court dismissed his petition on September 6, 2011. Appellant did not appeal the dismissal.

On November 6, 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the fines imposed in his sentence were excessive. The court denied the petition on December 12, 2013, and Appellant timely appealed.1 imposed by the court were [sic] constitutionally excessive and violated the

e the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this ____________________________________________

1 tement on January 29, 2014. The court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 4, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

-2-

J-S48042-14

subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. The PCRA constitutional rights connected with habeas corpus remedies may be

Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 570 n.4 (Pa. 1999); see also Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied cognizable under the PCRA must be raised in a timely PCRA petition and cannot be raised in a habeas corpus

Here, Appellant challenges his fines as unconstitutionally excessive, a claim cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(i) (providing, inter alia . . . [a] violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States . . Taylor, supra at 466. Thus, the trial court should have addressed his claim pursuant to the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542; Lantzy, supra

Commonwealth v. McCulligan, 905 A.2d 983, 988 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 918 A.2d 743 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

Our standard of review is well-settled:

When reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA relief, this Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error. Great deference is granted to the findings of the PCRA court, and these findings will not be disturbed unless they have no support in the certified record.

-3-

J-S48042-14

Commonwealth v. Rachak, 62 A.3d 389, 391 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 67 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted). petition. See Taylor, supra at 466. The time limits imposed by the PCRA are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed. See Commonwealth v. Fahy timeliness requirements of the PCRA, the PCRA court and this Court have no jurisdiction to review the petition by fashioning an equitable exception to

Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 91 A.3d 162 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

A PCR

Pennsylvania law makes clear no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition. Statutory time restrictions are mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, and may not be altered or disregarded to reach the merits of the claims raised in the petition. . . .

The three statutory exceptions to the timeliness provisions in the PCRA allow for very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). To invoke an exception, a petition must allege and the petitioner must prove:

(i) the failure to raise a 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

-4-

J-S48042-14

(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). The PCRA specifically provides that a petitioner raising one of the statutory exceptions to the timeliness requirements must affirmatively plead and prove the exception. Id. The statutory exceptions to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA are also subject to a separate time limitation and must be asserted within sixty (60) days of the date the claim could have been first presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). As such, when a PCRA [petition] is not filed within one year of the expiration of direct review, or not eligible for one of the exceptions, or entitled to one of the exceptions, but not filed within 60 days of the date that the claim could have been first brought, the trial court has no power

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1038-39 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 951 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 2008) (footnote, quotation marks and case citations omitted). Thus, when a petition is filed outside the one-year proven that one of the three limited exceptions to the timeliness

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331, 335 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 839 A.2d 352 (Pa. 2003).

April 8, 2010, when his time to appeal his sentence to this Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Hence, in order to comply with April 8, 2011. Because the underlying petition was filed on November 6, 2013, it is facially untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to review it

-5-

J-S48042-14

unless Appellant pleaded and proved one of the statutory exceptions to the time bar under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

Appellant neither pleads nor proves any exceptions to the time bar,

ated exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA applies.2 See Wilson, supra at 335; see also Commonwealth v. Seskey, 86 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Super. 2014) (finding Eighth Amendment challenge to imposition of fines in collateral petition waived). Accordingly, the court did not err or abuse its di we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of his claim. 3 See Fahy, supra at 315; Taylor, supra at 1038.

Order affirmed. ____________________________________________

2 We further observe that, even if Appellant had properly asserted an exception to the time bar, his petition challenging the events of his sentencing on March 9, 2010 was filed well after sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented, and would therefore be untimely in this respect as well. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). 3 Moreover, after Appellant is paroled, he may not be committed to prison for failure to pay his fines unless it appears after a hearing that he is financially able to do so. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 706(A).

-6-

J-S48042-14

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/8/2014

-7-