Com. v. Larue, L., III

J. S36027/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : LENNE LARUE, III : Appellant : No. 2168 MDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 29, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division No(s): CP-28-CR-0001614-2011

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2016

Appellant, Lenne LaRue, III, appeals from the order entered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his Petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, as untimely. We affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s Opinion.

The PCRA court’s Rule 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history in this case and we adopt its recitation for purposes of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 1/19/16, at 1-2. While we will not go into exhaustive detail here, some of the relevant facts are as follows.

On January 24, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver, and the Honorable Douglas Herman sentenced

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J.S36027/16

Appellant to time served to twenty-three months of incarceration on the first count, followed by a consecutive term of twelve months of probation on the second count. Thereafter, Appellant violated his parole, and on April 5, 2013, Judge Herman sentenced Appellant to serve the balance of his originally imposed sentence. Appellant filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence, which Judge Herman denied on March 28, 2012. Appellant did not appeal. Id. at 5.

On April 6, 2015, Defendant filed a PCRA Petition and a Memorandum of Law in Support, which the PCRA court ultimately dismissed as untimely.

Appellant timely appealed, raising the following two issues:

1. Was the trial court without jurisdiction to accept any plea of guilty or conduct any prosecutorial proceedings after a violation of the interstate agreement on detainers had occurred?

². Is the application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 Time to File, unconstitutional as applied to the Appellant, in that it violates the United States Constitution Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, relating to "Obligation of Contracts"?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

“Our 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). Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA petition. See

-2-

J.S36027/16

Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite).

Under the PCRA, a PCRA petition “shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 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 the expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).

Here, because Appellant filed the instant Petition three years after his Judgment of Sentence became final after pleading guilty, it is facially untimely under the PCRA.

Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of the three exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), which provides the following:

(b) Time for filing petition.

(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that:

(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

-3-

J.S36027/16

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.

(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)-(2). See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000) (applying sixty-day timeframe after reviewing specific facts that demonstrated the claim was timely raised).

Here, Appellant attempts to circumvent the timeliness requirement with two arguments: (i) that the PCRA’s one-year limit is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the requirements of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, and (ii) that he may invoke the after-discovered-evidence exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) because his previously undiagnosed and untreated Graves’ disease rendered him mentally incompetent and unable to assert the factual basis for the issues now raised.

The Honorable Carol L. Van Horn has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellant’s claims on appeal. After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of that Opinion.

-4-

J.S36027/16

See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 1/19/16, at 2-9 (holding that Appellant waived any rights he may have had under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, failed to timely file the instant Petition, and failed to invoke an exception to PCRA time-bar).

The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA court’s Opinion to all future filings.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/6/2016

-5-

' .. · .... . . ._.. --· ,• . I'PM .., Circulated 05/13/2016 02:08 . ,· , ~ ._ : . ,:, , __ . 1._.·: :· •

.iN THE COURT OF coMiv.101,t'PLEAS OF THi{39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT : ·, :. . ' . \ ·. . ·. :_. ·. ,• OFPENNSYLVANIA.:'FRANKLINCOUNTYBRANCH:'·,'· . . >_·· . . . ,.' :(,-.. :_:;./(/·\\ ~:f'·,·_..;?: -. ·.. . •.:./'.-;~. _rr: ,_/ : ' . ~ _·: .

. -··· Commonwealthof Pennsylv~~ia, ·.-_.":. : .- · cRIMINAi ActiJN · · . vs .. i;·_ •.. · __ ;· .... · •".! ·. • · 'No:J614-20ti· \ . .• ~ .·

. ', ··.:. .' - - - -~- .. . '.' .).·: -~: ; . . ~- : ~- . .. • • I • , ,· ' ,:-: · -, ·.,··· .;' ..

Lenne·L~ue~ nr, '. ·· - · . Defendant . . .. ' . ~_: . .. . -. . · ·H. onorabl~- . . CarolL. . ·. . Van . Horn . . ._ . : ' •I • • .

: •:· ·: .. .. : ·.'( :.

. :·: ; ', ~I

. '

- . ~ .· ,. :- ... ·:,·.'.' .•

.... •.

,.· .. ·. ·:·,,:·:·.' . .; . ~· .':'. '· ' . . ·",\' .: ... . . : . ~ .' :···. '·

.'..: :.; ~ .. , -, --. ·.'/.,. '·. ·r~ -~~--~ -.:/: \ . ·., . ,, ,· .·. -·

~ •• l •. , ·. ~ . .. '· .• >.•~ .. ··. ,,. ,\ I "",._'. ~• \ I •

''• . r1 •

'·· . ,.•/ ' . -. ;'',. ·: ··.· .r-: ',. ••• ' I ·,; ·,· .....

'' ;.' . ····,; <:

. · OPINION sur PA. R.Al1.1925(a) AND ORDER OF COURT:·. . . :, . : 'i" . ·. '·' . . .. - ,·. ··.:.?: . . ;' .... •.• •j_.' \ ·. ; .i-

-. ···· . .'. ';_', ,;

~ .·- ,·.

, .. _.') . . ·, ..•. •' . .~

- .. •'.' .. I·

Before Van Horn, P.J. JAN 1.9 20"16 ATTEST: A TRUE COPY

l)yvt sHeLa \ t,,j M ,t;{ Di WL., .~ Clerk of Courts . :

. ·on Jariuary 24~ 2012, the abo~e~captioned Defeiidarit, t~nne LaRti~~in; pl.~d.·guiltyto•.·· .· . . . . . •' . . . . . .

POgies;ionWithIntent to ~liY~ (PW!D):Heroin (< I g) L lllldPci.se~~on )'/Jth fat~nttO Deliver ·. ~ I

~;n:,): Cocaine (<2.5 .....··:· ". . ~. g).' o,;fOncfant~ ~nt~nc6d by the Hollot~foe obuJas H~ati .: . ·.. ·. o~tJi( · ·• · ;firstPWII) • ·. . __ _-_:.'·· charge to time served . to .2lmo: ·> ... -: .. _ ·. r.:'. >: · :.•.. nths; on the . . . :·.. ; ; ·.· ·-:· . second, ....°FWID ·· .. · . .charge hereceived r .. _-.;. . .,._ . . ,:_ ·. ·:· . ... 12 · . ':. . ·: ·_ . , <. . ,, ·:" ......

. ,iii>rit1,i'. rr~~~e?n1~:s,§f atthtt0! i~" ftm~ ~~~~,t11°1~1;~f }~g:riu"f9r · · • 1 . violaf' . . . •. d.r·.:·,us·.~ bl_e . . . .. . otiA.priI. · '. i5,20fa,artcl . . . . . ,. ·~ ·sentenced. . . . ,. ' t6·-~. s·; iiyetl1e i'.: ,, ·. ·- baikb~ o:f hls· orig1rtaily ' . . , -:' ;_: ". , •' : ·. . .. : .

On April 6, '2015, •· •• • ., • Defendant filed a Post~C6µvictioli R~lief Act (PCllA))'etitiona11d a· , , , I • , , ·, ·• , ' )·_.. •· , ·, ': , ,, , , '• , • • • , • • ,.

;.(.<_·:.:\,·. Memoranclfun,9ftaw in Support.Because Judge ·:· ' . ·... ·. ·.·" ·:.. ··.' :, ". ', .. ·. Herman had 'r~~eritly . ."·:··· .. retir~d; tlie,c'a~e.-··~as . ··. :.. · ,· ,.·, .. ', . . .. ',

... ,

. Se~bach, . Esqufre,asleg~lcounsel . . . . "."· '.. for the Defen'druitOn June'! :· I,.. 2015;thi D6fen.dantfiied ·.· .. ' . . ·. 'a.· .: ·.· . :··."· ... ·. ' • .. · ·., .··, ·.

Motion for Extension ofTime to file S~pplemerital PCRAPetition,\~hich this Court grant~d',· ' . Attorney Sembach then fileda ~otion to Withdraw as· Counsel. after concluding Defendant's ........ _. .~.X9.M:-~~P.J~_q~\-~.4 . rt9 .m.c;:tit~2~.~n&w~t§,. io1~., An~ml~Y.S.~mb.EJ.chpr.oYide.d,a. detail~dJxo Merit:,,, .s : ,~.- .....:,~~,-~ ., . ,~~- ..

I 35 235 fs. § 780·113(30), P . s: § 78.0~113(30), •. . 'v • • . ' .·• . •,•I·,'~,, ... :. , . . ''

.. ;···, : '·.' ;, ,__: .~ .. ·.. a

,. ''·' ·,•

~ .. . .. ·. ·' .. •.: :

~ ..~ . . :.

,' PCRA Petition without a, hearing. .: . ... ··.;: ,;,; : • . - • •· • • . '; I. ~ • •." - • • i .. ;·!. ·':·, .. .: ,Jhe. Defendant . ... filed·.. a N. otice . .• and Memorandum: . . ' Addendum .. ' to . . PCRA/Reply to ~6tipti.. . , -: , . . •'

,".: :··· : r • ·,'. , . }·/' . · ·. to WithdrawAppe,ai·~ce . . . ,. .". o~ Augustio, . 20,15..·· OnA.~gust. . . . . . . . 27, 2015,this.Cotit -. .. •' '·. ·.. enteied . ~ Order . .. . : ·, . . . ~ I : .

·. .

··•· . . ··. ' ·~~ · ... . ~· instiucting' ~~~- t6mhionwe.atth_'to i~sponci.t.o the.:,~~f~ndan~~s Noti~e ·and¥e~ora,n~um/rB·e· . :·.·:. . ·,. ·:. . ',: .... , •.• t

Commori~eal~h filed its • . ; • . . . • », . •. · .. An~we~ on Septe~ber29;.2015.5 •• . ..-. . • . ' • • • ·. • • • • • On O~t~ber 23,' 20_15, D~fend~t filed ,'' ;_: ·,. . • : . . ·, ' • ' ~. . ' • . • . ._ • ·'· \. . ...... . . .;. . . ~ <. '. · . ·.. · .

. ,•. .:

a. Supplemental .... . . . . .. J~isdi~tion . . . Statemefit .for P,CJM.; ~-011. October ' '..?-9i 201~. . this . Court dismissed .·, .. . . the

Deferidihlt;s-PCRA concluding t~at it was'unji~ely .. ()~ December 10,-2015; D~fendat1t filed~· .. :•: :· .·

.·. Notice of Appeal," Motion to Proceed In Fo,,;,a Paupe;is.-(IFP) and St~teme~t of.Matters · . : ;;'· · .. ,··.: . _. . . , . .. . . . ·. . . . . . . .. . .

Complain~ of ~nAp~al. •• • •' The :lSS~~- is ~owripci'fpr,de~isi~p • ,. • • . inthls Opinion~d ', • I ~ '· • .Order ~f C~urt .. • ' • ·, '- • ~ •

.. ·,:·.·. , •tssUEiiusEo,i::'.' . . , .. '. ','\

Defendant raises a sole issue in his Con.cise Stat~me_nt. Defendant argues that his "rights .. ·: . :

. ~de~ the :Fifth ~d F ~tirte'e~th Atn~~dme~ts fo th~ U~tei:s~a~e~· Constitritio~ w~re' vi6l~te~ .-'. : .. ·. ·.·:· .: ';· ~-.. .-: . : : • . .· _. ·. :.- . . .. : . .. ' . ·, . ·. . . . . . . .. : . .· . . . . ·.... . . . . .' .. . ' . ·: :·; . .· : when the Commonwealth failed to bring [him] to trial. ~thin 180 days ofr~ceipt of [his] Request. · ;::

· for Final Disposition which. the Commonwealth . . . . accepted withj>rosecutor> s Acceptance . of Custody for Request of Final Disposition pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act . ·'.'.' :"·.

(IAD)." . Thus; Defendant , concludes his P.CRA Petition was . . unlawfully . dismissed. For the

following reasons, this Court disagrees. .... ,'.·_. ~· :' ~ : ·, ~ \

.·:· .· .... . ·,,.- .· .. : . .-.·· . .;.

3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988). 4 Commonwealthv. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). 5 The Commonwealth's Answer addresses the issues raised in the Defendant's Notice and Memorandum but appears to be improperly titled "Commonwealth's Answer to the Defendant's Petition for Credit Time." ·. 6 There appear to be issues regarding exactly when the Defendant filed his Notice of Appeal. The Court would note · that it did receive a document entitled "Notice of Appeal" that was dated on November 3, 2015, in the mail from the Defendant in early November of 20 l 5. ·

detenniJ~\vh~theithe ~ecisio~ of the: '.PCRA ~9urt·.-. "is supported by; evidence of r~c~rd and _is, . ··:·.:.··. ·-.. ' . . .· . .- ', · .. ·. . ', ·- -··.. · . . ·'. . ,· ..

. 'fre~ of i'egal ·r~tror/'· Co,ri,potrwedlthv_.' Rive;a, J ff A,3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. SupeL 2010) (cit~ti_~n; . . ()tniri~ct)t: Thesct)pe; ol' review· .. . ;." is/Jimited; .- , · .... the·:t;viewihii court must Yi~\V.· th.eJin4ings of. the: ". ·. · ... ,. ·.· ; ... ' . :·. ·.,_" ·.· . '_.- .. ·-. ·. _.·. . ... ··.. ._ ...

PCRAcourt iid_the:e~id¥1ce bf re~ord iri thelight''nipst favorablg ~o the prev~iling_p~ afthe, . :. :. ·-~-~1 · ._level:•••:·;,·Id,: ._.·; h~ d~cisio.n·· :or·· ~e/PCRA'· '..couri:·.·mal)e·;·af~rme<l-:''on_.:an; .·.gtOlllldS··. i~·-·_it .: is/,

· s..up~orted bythereco.rd.'', ldln.tht, 'c. aseof{putelf . .. . ·. ,· . ·. . . . . . l~g~l'qtl6;tion; . ·. . . the sfancfurdofieyiew is de . ; .....

See 90~1J1onwealthv., Patton, ~8? ·A.2d:1283;.li86 .··.

: The:IAJJ·is\fu agl'.eement between· fdttJ-eighfstates, the District of .·. ·. ~olumbia~ Puerto Rico; the Virgin Isfands,'and.the United States,> . . .· . ·-.th~fe,stablishesproG¢dUi:ySforthetransfer,of p:¢sonerSz:,;, ,.,_;'.\c·.i\i;:, : :::·· . . ' focarcerate4 in One jurisdiction.tothe temporary custody of another ..' ·- jurisdi'ctiofrwhich lfus',fodged'a detaip.era.gairista prispner; Unlike/ ·, ,. .; . . a request fot extradition, which is a request thatthe state' in wh,ich the pr~~otier is inc~c.etated:ttansfer c~st~dyto the reql!es,ting,state;<; -: a 4etamer is merely a' means. of infomiing the custodialjprisdiption that 'there are outstanding charges pendingin: anoth~tjurisdictfon :- ·. . · . . . arid a request to hold the prisoner for the requesting state· or notify' . . .. . . . "''."·-·· •••. c.'." ···: ··-,···· --~' " .... ;..; .. JQ~t!"~.qtJ<;.~!!!!&.§.!~t~ .QfJb.~.P.l]§9!1~'.~,immiJ!~p,tJ;~Je'.!;l$.~:"-·;;,.,,,.\;:.:~ ,·~·-'-:- ... . ,~'., .... ,. ,; ... ·-··'- ··, ·" ,..,.~ .,~ ,... _: ,.,,_._._.,., :··· "" ..

,3

: Commonwe~lth '. .; . v. Leak, 2'.fl\.,3d 10~6, 1039 {Pa.' Super.) citing 9ommori111eglt~y. Davis, 786 .' . _- '· ·. _..,. . 0 .• , . . • ~ ' •. . .. _·.• ' . _. . : ' ',• ._- • ·: ., ; •·.- ,_>'. ' • . • •; . . ., ·, .. I _- • . -~ :• .. • : . . '

. A,.2d 173' 17 5 (P~. doo 1). '.'Jb.¢ p:oii~y of the [I@] i~)~i iricqurage the expeditious' ~4 orderly . . . •.· . ; . : ' .: . . .. . . . . . . ; ·. ·. . ,'. : . .. . .. •. . :_ ' . ·. ·: . . . .' . . . . ,; . •. . .. . . . .. . ._..• _ . : . .~ . . . : . ' . ·... . . : .. ' . . - . . ,. . -_ ... i . . . . . . ·_ . ; -' . . . . : '. . '. .. : . . . . . . . . . : . -_ ·. . -. . .

.~.. . 1.spositi~n•. dfch~g~~ miJ.:iii•.·-P~<>se •.is·:_;o_'pf~;~t·~:·'Wd.:t~~!~t··~Bs'ri*;•:~eat~entind · ·. ., ·,

rehabilitati~n -...... ' .'' .. . programs ·_• _ i ·.' .. · ' by. ; eliwf~;ting " .. ·_,-•' '. : : ·. ,'. , ... ','; ·.. un~ri~riti¢;:ihi~4 :.- , ', · .., ' ,: '.' ( · , , · ·.: ~6cqm;any the fili~g ~f d~tainers.,, '; .·· , . :'. ,· -~-, :' .. ··:. ·: . ' . . ·, . · · I .' . ~- _· '· : · ": :. . • ·' "

. ·tommonwealt~ y;Horne, 89 . A.3d 277, 281(Pa:_Super. 2014{1'heD~feridlint avers that !4.e .·•conimo,nwe~th}pursuant t~·J\rt.1i1lfd:()f~~·i@1,- .. w~'.r~~#f'c1}ci:~ri~g;~lll.t~~~ . ~thin 180.·_ . : ' · ... :; ,· '· '..· ;. . ;, ·:\·.·;/.;( .• ' , ( . •.... .. >·:,: ,·,' <,'(:},:,·· \ )·.:,J., ; . '.};.:· _ ii. :· ... . days after he requested .f.inatdispo:si_t~on andthe C()Illin~IiW~~~g. ari:d qolll"t lp~ged a.detainer againsthim and it failed to do ~o.·s~e'./i'~;\!·1,1zchigan~· 507 lf~'. 43.(i 9~J)'.'(: : '

' Jnhis Concise Statement the Defendant highlights 'that 'the TAI) is a compact "wl1ic!i ·. establishes -~ contractual rela,tionship between signatory:·~{afos a~~wep -~~-it's [ sicJbeneficiajy, the , . , ._.·· ·>:·\· .- : . .. ~ ·'.":': 1 -.,: • • • •• \ . ·: •••• •.•• ; ·, '.. ·.:·:· •.•... • •• , •• , ., •••• • • •. · •.•• ·f: .,.. . ".: , : · ... : · , ~··. -~ __:;.: ··, · .. _.. r ·. · · . ·• . · . ·

. . . defendant or prisoner." Def.' s Concise St~temeflt at 1. As result, a the Defeiidant asserts that: by . · appl;fui·4i.}~.-.6.s .. • • .• .. • . 4 .'.: · .. '·' . :,;· .' .~ • : . · -v §Q545(b):··.the ~inle i~fr.for.filing.a . ~ •• •.· • ..' :- '. • • . . -.' • ~' •,: •• ··: . •• • '. . ..• •. ;·. :_·: • ,· '. : .. ,.· ;~~ ' .• -:· ;' ' : • ·' ;~titi~n, tti6~~ 'wouiibe.: . :: ·. ·:· •• '· ••• •..•. '.· :. ; . ·:,:- _: ·.; < .. .' . . . . . .. '·..

· applying a law iinpairin;g ... ',· the._o~ligation of~. ~6ntfact ' '. '. .. . ·,. ,: .. ·.: · ....... . J~ yiplat!o.· ~ <?f~e U~i!~~!; $tate.s: .'· 1 •'' . . .. ·,.· . ., .·.. ,.· .. ·. ,·

Constitution. Additionally, : . . . . :•,-::_. .. •.·. Pefenctah~ a'.ss~it11at,this Com,t'~J{}¥itlip,lltjurisqictidn to·. :.accept. . . . '.. ·> .· : ;' .. ·:. .. . . . ' : . : >. ·. ~ ~·.;"t.:.<: ' ·.. ·.. . :· : ::: ... ·, . . .- : . . : . . . . . ·. ·.

his guilty pleahe entered on J anuary 24, .2Q q. . I. Waiver . .\.~. . . In response to the Defendanes assertionthat the PSRA) one-year tim~ limit is ..

· unconstitutional·. because it conflicts :.: .. with the requirements ..... . 'of the IA.D, the Commonwealth . , ·. ,· ·. ·· ·;. ' . .. . . : .

asserts . that the Defendant has alreadywaivedhis ·. . . .. .· rig4t~ 1.lll~~rthe lAD by entering a plea.in this, . . . . . . . .

matter. See Commonwealth v. Blackburn, . 414 A.2d 638, 64i' (Pa, Super.'J979). ··.' This Court.i: '.. .. -; . .·· . . . ·.· :· ,·:·: . . ·: :· .•.· .. .,,

agrees. Defendant asserts that the rights afforded t~ough the IAD are not \Vaivable. However, in · Blackburn our Superior Court stated:

7 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9101.

~.:.. ' ...... · .: . .<, < In the fuS~~fmatt~{~~ #eferid&-it dicl fite a Mo.~hti t()' DtSIIIiss P~uatlt to'42ipa, . ;··~.·. '' . ' C:~i.:§ . . . . . ·. .. 910 I (Agteeirtent ~fi dbi~i?eti) ~ii-'D.eceJrib6t2i; 20·i;fi The 'Coririho't1~e'i1th fil~tar1 Atiswer tcf . . . '·>.-':/\/.-' ::·:-· ,~

·. ttr:~;:::~:~~t i!t~:~ii~~;ti;i!~;tt :t:er;riJ~.• ':·./i.' :.. :/,.. ;".\:. .;··:/:. ~:. ,·. . : .·.,',;' ,. •.'

2010). Under42 pa.C;S,:§'Q~45, MY PC){Apetitiqr1,incllldi11gse:~011d . or.su1J~e;:que:nt_pe4ti()OS, . . . .. . . . . . ·.· ",: .

:~~~1~~~tt:~~~:tr:zw~:h~~;·~~menwrf) '>, Id. •· Additfonhlly; pursutriit t~ 'ca~niohie~lthf Crui/Sii A:2d 287 (Pa>~004), Defoncl~r· ·, ·. •· .-_.-·_ • .,, . •· ,· •• i • ·•. . . · .• '··: .. ;_.'' .•·• .- •·· • • . • ., .. ·.-_· ••

'argues he shoi1id' be gi"eh -th~;oipoitultlt)'t~·prove.· at a he:aiing tllat hi~ ~raves' dise#e:~med·.·- - . th.~tHriely assertion' of the fa6t~' oh whl~h his PCM is prerhised.'JcL l)eferiilitnt also aSksthls·' ; .. cotrrt to app6ih{ari ex~~it vVitness:wn6 spedMizes_m qtates' <lise~se or pro;ide'ltlm ~itli;the - .-.-.-.. - ...:- ·-·.·- .. :- : '. -. . - :."·, '· "'•.1,;,· .. · :' . ,· :·- .. - ·. : ... ' ,. · .. \ .'·,:. ···: ·.·.'· . ··.:. ·. . •.·

fiirt~ foobtajn one. Id. at ~: Fm,aily, D~fendant claims that his PCRA Counsel, 'Attorney : ' ·-. :\ · . -. Setribfleh,was ineffectite bec~use h~ 'r~ledtoj,roperly iifrestigatetlie_ Defendanfit.Gf~yes~.

_- cliseas~: aiJ.4 its effect on his alleged mental in.competency.•. ,; . _

\; : ~. ;~ri~t:t,:::i~1;tt;1;:j1ir:::r;;ittr~L - . . · murdered ·. .: ·. •.:: '·....

thre{findivi<iuals. andthe'n"attern.pted· ·.- :.·' .: · · .· · .· -~ . . .; ··:: .··.. ·. ·_,:. ._ . .. . ··;. ·suicicl¢ by ~hdbtirig :··', · . ,·:: ,::: ": ·.,,:-,.. . ·. ·.···c,··"·., : himself .· In.the ·.· . . . ·. he~d.: ..cruz~ 852. - . - ..: ·.: ·.. ·. , .... :.1·.- · , . : . '· ..

A.2d ' ~t488 ;>:···· .:·.· .. Tlie ])efe11tlar1t · · ·". ·:.·I·.'·.·.<· sJ&ivedand ~·:..;_.:· '. ' eyetittially'·-. p:::_..·:. . \::_ ~·:._;·;.·:·.- '·:' le4'~',. ~Zid&nte~dere _' · . ·-.: .", ._._.". ·,·. tb:t .. :,three :_.·:;.·.:·.<."· courits°'of ':.";.·.,~.- ~., :"i:. .. ··: ·>:

_se6bni'degree·murd~r. ld.H~~~ver/the .shd~ting jncidenf~:ausyµ.*e d~f¢hdiint signifi9ant:braµr -•· · .· ,•' -. 1, • ', • I'' • ' < .' ·.·, • ·=.'.·.-,· .. ', '' -; ' ',,'·•,I=,-:''•,',·.·:,·: ':. ' '. '.\ .: ,·._.:. ,·., "• • -.': • .·• '•, ,"' '' --:·· • .··· ,.·, • :: ··: .. • •) "• •

damage' so rritigh so that at his plea .. hearing.his counsel. stated th:a. t the Defendant could ~ot .. · . ·. ·.· .. . '··. ·. . . . ' •.· '. ' •' .. :·· . .. ·· ... ;, . C- - · .

·-''". ":·,···,_, . ,. ..-~~expres~. 'etnoti<lns.~dxeall¥,- . . ._.:" . . -. . d,isguss~~e. ~~ facts,.O:. .£.this,cas~,ih,an¥-S()r,1,,of~sensibl(}· . . .· :. .·. •.· : . .. Way:J.fdi·~~-""'.-·;·· ·,>·~····,"·,,·········'··,•· ······· .. .,... .. : . . ·. . . . '. : } . . . . . ' . ; ; :· . ·. _: . . .. ' . . : . ,- : ,." ·. . ..

On coli~teral· attack, .the defendant in Cr~z claimed that his untimely PCRA Petition fell ·d,. ., ·.• . . .. . ·.· ·. . ' '·: ·• . .. ; ·.

. within the statutory-after. discovered .. evidence exception .· beca~se his brain damage att4,e ~- time of ·. . . . .. : .. . . . .· . .. . . '.

·:$e pleaheilin.gand ci_uri~g the,proper .appeal time period r~hd~r~.d ~.incon.1pet~nt. Inf1,n.cling: · >. ' . . ·. . .·:. . , -_;- .. ·_, . ._. '. . ,· ... ,·. . · _ "_\ ·.-:· .. . .· . ·.· .· .-. .-· ._ . :_ '.. '·'.. ' . 1,:. ~. ·. . . . .' . . . ·. -·.. . .. ·._·:' . . : .. :·- ·' .·

. .that the exception applied to tli~_defend~t. our Supreme .Gm1rt' held ,µiat "inlight of thelanguage .... · '._ ... ·.· ·-.-._ .... _:·'·. :<< ... -.·· .-- -._-_ .. -.·_.· .· ·:·: ·.; ,.·.·. _ _.·.:._. :-·,.- . · - .. ·. ·. :_ ·.· ....... ;, ·.. _, ·. ,_' _. ·.-· ..... : ·.·· ·: ·- .· . ': .. ·.· ·."•,•',_' - .· .· . -·.·, .. -_ .. · .· -·:· .·_ ... · ·._ r- · .. ·. .- ...

aJ1d · • · . . · of.:the.. exc~ti91{the 0

uniqt1e , .' ··,-.· .·:".y·-·:., .. -· . . . ~_;·_.-,:··.·:·,·,_·".:',;·::··,_·~ n~t&e: of clairns -:_.: ·~·· .: .· · <··>· so~ding\11 lncompeience, · __, , :-:.-:_· . -. :.· -_. -_. _ ' - . ·.·.· . this' ·- Court's . -=.-··\··,.,,.·.::-·; .·· '.

. ·.·. . . ' . ·: .· . c . . . _\ . .· . .. . . . . . . . ·, . . . . ·. discussion.in Qo,nmpnwealthy, . .. .· -_, Haag, ,.··. 8Q9.A,.2d 27l(fa;2002), [the defendantj.should .,. ·.·· .··- be·'·:· .. · _ ··· .-,·;.-:· .. - . ·,, ·. ,_ ..·· .. ,,; , .. .. . , .·.··._ .. •, ''· . . ..- -: . -· ·' ··:·- ·,.-.'._· ·.

... ·affo~ded,. ';"._.:.- ~-~:~:-·~._._.:.·': ~ppprturtityj~:~ne111p,tt9 '. : :;_::_::_·.·:-:,._._.·.-· . · __:·.~·, p~6ve th~the'_wa~ _..,_.-, .. , _: _··'. __ _ ,incompet¢nta~· ' .. "';:._;:,· ·>· .·-· ,: the· ~ilevant .. - ·- •.·.·.·_:_. .' :::··'~- ···.·. _·.· .. · .. tirn6s .and . ?····.·. ·:· ···: ·.·-

· .time-1:>a.r.'"Jd. atr. "',297. '· . . . lJltimately, . : .- . :':,'..:. -· .'. : : '. ·. _:- .r: .": ··; ... .I, .:: .. : =-- . . . the defendant in Cruz:was able to. a present psychiah'ist who . .· · . -·. ··'·· - .. · i ·-:. ·-:-- ·, _·.. . .. . .·,, ·· ·.-·. : ··-.-:~:., .•· ·. .·. ·. • • ;_. .· .• •, ··:.· · .. ;_ :·.·,-_ ". .' ·• :: .... '_.. '. , . _.: ,, ·., ·. ', ..... ; .

testified th~t lie was '1fl~ble)o understand the.· events at his plea he.aring. TJ:\e D~f~~dant in the •.. ·_:._.:· .' ··,- ·.:_ ::-·· .. :I·:,'·· '1,._;_·;. :.·· ._· . '• : -. · ... _-:, . ,·. ·.· .... ·.. :._._ .... ·.' . ,'' ': .... · .. ·····', · ·: ·,._ '•;

instant matter appears . ... to assert ·., in. . his Notice _.-:- arid Memorandum .that.his case is analogous ·:. . . "· to ' ·.· ._·., ·.· ... .- :· , .... ·- . . .· .. · ·. ,··. ·.. ," .. ..... Cruz. . . · . ·,.

an.cl h6 shoµld k ·affon:I~ci'a siihilar opporturi{ty.tci m u*_ate howhis incompetence pf vented .him. : •• :. •• ": .·'· A•·~·' . • '(<. . ·.. •". : • ,' •"• '.", : •: ' '' • • :: ' • •' ':. • • ,: :, • ·. • • .· • ..,.. '• ; • • • '•, • ' • '' .·•.: '. . • ' . • • ·. •' .: ': ': • ; '" ' ", :. ' • '• '. '. ·'; ' :• •. : ': ",• .- :,• ,'. •

•-, .· :'l·-.,,eanring ·_··_ the. faqt11nec~~sary to support . ··•.·· · :··· ··--~:--·=·:_·'-· .:':-:--:;:.-·~·--··· _:;-_-_· -·: :· .$.e..:._,; claim upon which·.·.• __ · · .: _-:. ~_'.· '.·.·'-:.··· . · : . . ". his P~U Petition. is bas~d.. ,. •. ·.\:',· -~. · .. ~,:-_. '. ,'_.·:::· ·.-.:·.'·.· ', ' _:_.-_. ·_: r ( ' •, In response ~... the Commonwealth 'di~s Monaco 'Which this' Court ·' .. . finds f~ much .. ~alogous . ' ' ' '- . :- -~· ..

. . to th~ instant matter than Cru.z.In. Monaco, the. defendant suffer~.cl from Post-Traumatic Stres~.. ; . ·.· - . :. •. .. ·•• . • ,·. ' • ' •. ' ·_ ,: , ·' . '.' ~ : . ._,- ·. ;: _:; .. : .' .. I ,' .• • .. ': ~-: • . '. . ' · .. •..- ·:.: . -~ •. ,·.. _ .., _,l .. · •.- '· .:·. • ..· ' • ' : : .;·, .--·: ' .• '. .., ·: . . . ,.-·-·.· _'.. . .. ·: .;. : ·' •' ..• '· .·.: ·: :·· ·. ': : : ' •

. : . Dis_6rder '(PT~I))an4 a~empt~d}'to in;vpke an·~xceptign toJh~ _time restrictions. pfthe PCRA~ .

arguing ·:. . the fact . of his' PTSD diagnosis [were . . . : j . . ·.. . ·• . ·.· unlmovr.n to him and coul,q not have been ·. . ·.. . . ·.

ascertained by the exe;cise.of duia;<liJigence." Monoaco, 99~ A.2q at 10,81. Ultimately, our,, . ' .

. Supreme Court rejected this ~gumept finding that C.the p~titioner's claim did not fall within the.

· Cruz holding · .. · . be. . . cause . . the petitioner . ' . failed . to alleg~Jlis ' . . post-traumatic, . . . stress .. disorder 'impaired

<·. his mental abiHty torai~e . .· prcqrnrnuni~~te . . his claim."' . Id. . at 1,0~2-1083 ... · .... · · ·., ·. .· . . .

. . • Unlik,e Monaco ,thelPefendapt here·does actu~ly allege that his Graves, disease impaired . . . . . • · ... ·. · ..... -;· _:· .···:._' . . ,· ... ·.-:_ .·". ·,·· -1._, .'·.·. ·• . .-: . . . ·. . . . ·. •.. . ..... ' '.'

. his . . mental ability to raise his claim .· and learn the facts necessary to suppprt .the claim upon which. . . . . .. .

it is-based. However, as correctly highlighted by the Commonwealth, the Defendant fails to

properly identify what after-discovered eyidence his alleged incompetence prevented him from

r:

. tilhely }Jisiri~.Jni~~t, 'the rebor<f i~ cl~arthat 't'hJ prirriary facts Upori\v}#~li the 'Deferidani'(· • <,. .·' ... ·;:··

. Specifically, di'~rb i; littt'e dotiht that the l)~fendani laieW about th~ fact~'reg~dfrig his iAD' ·'.: ; .: cfaim; . .which. ~ II1akes tJ· the sub:stariti~e basis of ~s c:mrent' PCRA'Petiti()Ii:. . . . . . . attlie ti~e he. ent~red: ,: . ·. . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . . : . ... . ; . .· . . . '· .. .·.. : . :·

. ·.. his·. guiltyplea: ..... · After a1'r;·tile:defepdariffil;d I{Motidn~ . .... tcfD1srniss~uant\842 .. · ' Pa. C.S:910t .. .. , .. ·· . <; . •. •, ·. .·. : . . _. ·.'·· ,:.· . •. _.· ' ... ·· .

· · ·c1~~em~hi:'~r·· IJetaine,r:s)··ie,ss't~'a.mo,nlli bef()!e ·h~ ehter~d .·his' 'grill~ .plea''.·°t:f~z .• (ifct~ariy·:· · .. . di'stkgui~hiible frd~\1i~··1rist~tmatte~ as the facts>there'rt1ak6 itcleafthatthe d~feh~t'sbt~in .·.· ·. ·:·. .. . .. '' ,. . . . •' . . '· ... :. :~<:. . · . ·.d. amage cau~~d liini. tob6·. incomMt6rttafthe :. . .' plea hea.ririg· and diiring thi appli9abfe tilll~ly.periof ···.. ;, . ;, ·::. ·.· .: ' . · .. _·; . .. . •'... ' •· ..... ··· .. : .· ' .

. . .·•. . to rErlsif his' cfaims'bri· c:oliatcif~l· attac!(. In dontrast, th~re'is no qtiestioij 'th~t the Defen.dant heil .: ,, ·.· ·.,.,:·... i.; ' . ·:·,···' . ,: ·. . . . /;,:·. ;·.'' ,_.-:.• ... ; ..

w~s cognizant of the fact~ necessruj to s~pport his Im .claim at hi~ plea hearing: which is the . - ·.. ,. ; .. •' .

. • . ·,· ·b~sisf6r··~s·.i11siabt•I>:C~·:p~ii~bri'.·• chns~qtien~i·t1ii·~· · ¢8urt .• firtd;•·th;tt_li~:a~~t~cu°scovered:::1:),.i . · .••· .. ·.· ,., '. ••.: ': ._:,/-··.: . ':· .· . . · · , '. :_.·..• : / ,.:,: . ; ·• · . ·.' · .: · i:.f' \ . :.·: . ·. \:• / :'; . • '·: '<'.; ··: .. , '"'i;,::i··· ·.· . ·:, \·-: eyi4e:ri¢e·~ifoepti ori'qoes' not apply tqthe .D~f~n~('and: his curren,t,PCRA'p·~~itl'ori '. .. :,,.· . . ·.·:,·· ..... ·.. .v, .· •. '. . . . . .;·,: ·:' ,• . is uritiin,ely. .'.·:

; . . '·t. ; . k ' . ·• • ..... ' ·~.

Furthermore~· Attorney Sembach cannot be found t~ be ineffective for. failing.tq· raise the': . ·, · ·;,;~,J~~rJ~ilfu deie'rtruin(~irts.S;{c1~.,,,bilar1~t:.Tifzei 1sJi~:zJ· 649°Ja:· 2061 t• ._.., .

. ·..... , Ct>urt lacksjurisdictiontc>;corisid~r' arid rule on the DefenCUU1.t's PCRAPetition'as it ls .Witiineiy': ·. . and th&I)~f~hclarit . .... '· · Ii~ failed to sh6w . that he· is . entitl~d fo.. any of the exc~pti<>ri~'uridet'§ :· .. 9545(c). 8 ·,• ·.· ··.··.. .. :· . . . · ....

---··:···,. .., ~;Iher~fqrf,Jhi.C.plrr.tresp.e.ctfully:r.equest's,.the~appeal.be;distnissed;and.the . Superfor.Court.a:fflirrii c~., ; ~-.,~.c·: ,_. , ~. . . . .

our prior Order :deriyirig reliefurider the PCRA. . BThe Court~ti~ldalso notethat ~ven.if~e were to.addre~s~e:sub~~c~ ofDefendant'sIAD craih/we wo~1ld find . it meritless for the reasons articulated in the Commonwealth's Answer to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss . Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 (Agreement on Detainers) and Motion for BaH Reduction filed on January 5, 2012·.

. ' . -~ .. .· : . ·.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39Tff JUDICIAL DISTIUCT OF. .. . '. P~NNSYLVANIA- FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH .:. ·. . . . . Coµimonw~al~ of :Peiprsylvania, · :· ·: . CRIMINAL ACTION . · .··. . ·. . : . .. . .· : ... . ~ '. : ·. ,: ~ . :, · . ~

.·· vs. . . : .: ., No: 1614".'2011 r·: ' ... . ·: . . .,. ' . : . :~"' . : ·:. ~ .: . . Lenne LaRu~, III, . . .· . : . . . . . '\·.··

·. . ·. : .' Defendant . .. Honorable ... Caroii>v~~ . . .. ~.;' . . ;·_ H~rn. . .· .i.. · . · . • .. I_•;', · .. ~. . . .. . ~. . .. I" •

' : : . OR.DER OF COURT '. - .. · . . . .. .. :···. . . ~ . .. ··.. . .' . . .. •

. . ·. · ·. ·· AND NOW TIDS &DAY OF January, 2016,pursuant.to Pa: R.A.P .. 193l(c),

· · ·. rr IS )IEREBY ORDEimD THA,'.I' the Clerk of Court~ off';~lin County· · ·.·. -. •.1',

.. shallpromptlytransmit to the ProthonotaryoftheSuperior Court therecord inthis matter ·. .- .along with . the· attachedOpinicnser , Pa. I·:, R.A.P.·1925(a) ,• .• ,• ... ', ·. .: . • · ,·; . •.: . ,,..: .- : . • - · • I -. ,:_-· ',

. . Pursi/ant.to)'q .. R: Crim. P._ 1141 the Clerk of Courts shazi'i*''rrtectiaiely docket/his · _ . . Opinionand Order of Court and record inthe docket the date it was.made. · The Clerk shall: .. · .

. . _;, ,-_. forthwith furnish. a copy of the Opinion and Order of Court, by mail or personaldelivery, to. each . . . ; .· :_ . party or attorney, andshall record in the docket the timeand manner thereof ' -

'_. •., . By the Court,' ; .: ·. ·. · .: ·

. Carol L. Van Hom, P .J.

copies: Zachary Mills., Esq., Assistant District Attorney Lennc Larue, III, Esq., Defendant ·

' .. · .... . . ._.. --· ,• . I'PM .., Circulated 05/13/2016 02:08 . ,· , ~ ._ : . ,:, , __ . 1._.·: :· •

.iN THE COURT OF coMiv.101,t'PLEAS OF THi{39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT : ·, :. . ' . \ ·. . ·. :_. ·. ,• OFPENNSYLVANIA.:'FRANKLINCOUNTYBRANCH:'·,'· . . >_·· . . . ,.' :(,-.. :_:;./(/·\\ ~:f'·,·_..;?: -. ·.. . •.:./'.-;~. _rr: ,_/ : ' . ~ _·: .

. -··· Commonwealthof Pennsylv~~ia, ·.-_.":. : .- · cRIMINAi ActiJN · · . vs .. i;·_ •.. · __ ;· .... · •".! ·. • · 'No:J614-20ti· \ . .• ~ .·

. ', ··.:. .' - - - -~- .. . '.' .).·: -~: ; . . ~- : ~- . .. • • I • , ,· ' ,:-: · -, ·.,··· .;' ..

Lenne·L~ue~ nr, '. ·· - · . Defendant . . .. ' . ~_: . .. . -. . · ·H. onorabl~- . . CarolL. . ·. . Van . Horn . . ._ . : ' •I • • .

: •:· ·: .. .. : ·.'( :.

. :·: ; ', ~I

. '

- . ~ .· ,. :- ... ·:,·.'.' .•

.... •.

,.· .. ·. ·:·,,:·:·.' . .; . ~· .':'. '· ' . . ·",\' .: ... . . : . ~ .' :···. '·

.'..: :.; ~ .. , -, --. ·.'/.,. '·. ·r~ -~~--~ -.:/: \ . ·., . ,, ,· .·. -·

~ •• l •. , ·. ~ . .. '· .• >.•~ .. ··. ,,. ,\ I "",._'. ~• \ I •

''• . r1 •

'·· . ,.•/ ' . -. ;'',. ·: ··.· .r-: ',. ••• ' I ·,; ·,· .....

'' ;.' . ····,; <:

. · OPINION sur PA. R.Al1.1925(a) AND ORDER OF COURT:·. . . :, . : 'i" . ·. '·' . . .. - ,·. ··.:.?: . . ;' .... •.• •j_.' \ ·. ; .i-

-. ···· . .'. ';_', ,;

~ .·- ,·.

, .. _.') . . ·, ..•. •' . .~

- .. •'.' .. I·

Before Van Horn, P.J. JAN 1.9 20"16 ATTEST: A TRUE COPY

l)yvt sHeLa \ t,,j M ,t;{ Di WL., .~ Clerk of Courts . :

. ·on Jariuary 24~ 2012, the abo~e~captioned Defeiidarit, t~nne LaRti~~in; pl.~d.·guiltyto•.·· .· . . . . . •' . . . . . .

POgies;ionWithIntent to ~liY~ (PW!D):Heroin (< I g) L lllldPci.se~~on )'/Jth fat~nttO Deliver ·. ~ I

~;n:,): Cocaine (<2.5 .....··:· ". . ~. g).' o,;fOncfant~ ~nt~nc6d by the Hollot~foe obuJas H~ati .: . ·.. ·. o~tJi( · ·• · ;firstPWII) • ·. . __ _-_:.'·· charge to time served . to .2lmo: ·> ... -: .. _ ·. r.:'. >: · :.•.. nths; on the . . . :·.. ; ; ·.· ·-:· . second, ....°FWID ·· .. · . .charge hereceived r .. _-.;. . .,._ . . ,:_ ·. ·:· . ... 12 · . ':. . ·: ·_ . , <. . ,, ·:" ......

. ,iii>rit1,i'. rr~~~e?n1~:s,§f atthtt0! i~" ftm~ ~~~~,t11°1~1;~f }~g:riu"f9r · · • 1 . violaf' . . . •. d.r·.:·,us·.~ bl_e . . . .. . otiA.priI. · '. i5,20fa,artcl . . . . . ,. ·~ ·sentenced. . . . ,. ' t6·-~. s·; iiyetl1e i'.: ,, ·. ·- baikb~ o:f hls· orig1rtaily ' . . , -:' ;_: ". , •' : ·. . .. : .

On April 6, '2015, •· •• • ., • Defendant filed a Post~C6µvictioli R~lief Act (PCllA))'etitiona11d a· , , , I • , , ·, ·• , ' )·_.. •· , ·, ': , ,, , , '• , • • • , • • ,.

;.(.<_·:.:\,·. Memoranclfun,9ftaw in Support.Because Judge ·:· ' . ·... ·. ·.·" ·:.. ··.' :, ". ', .. ·. Herman had 'r~~eritly . ."·:··· .. retir~d; tlie,c'a~e.-··~as . ··. :.. · ,· ,.·, .. ', . . .. ',

... ,

. Se~bach, . Esqufre,asleg~lcounsel . . . . "."· '.. for the Defen'druitOn June'! :· I,.. 2015;thi D6fen.dantfiied ·.· .. ' . . ·. 'a.· .: ·.· . :··."· ... ·. ' • .. · ·., .··, ·.

Motion for Extension ofTime to file S~pplemerital PCRAPetition,\~hich this Court grant~d',· ' . Attorney Sembach then fileda ~otion to Withdraw as· Counsel. after concluding Defendant's ........ _. .~.X9.M:-~~P.J~_q~\-~.4 . rt9 .m.c;:tit~2~.~n&w~t§,. io1~., An~ml~Y.S.~mb.EJ.chpr.oYide.d,a. detail~dJxo Merit:,,, .s : ,~.- .....:,~~,-~ ., . ,~~- ..

I 35 235 fs. § 780·113(30), P . s: § 78.0~113(30), •. . 'v • • . ' .·• . •,•I·,'~,, ... :. , . . ''

.. ;···, : '·.' ;, ,__: .~ .. ·.. a

,. ''·' ·,•

~ .. . .. ·. ·' .. •.: :

~ ..~ . . :.

,' PCRA Petition without a, hearing. .: . ... ··.;: ,;,; : • . - • •· • • . '; I. ~ • •." - • • i .. ;·!. ·':·, .. .: ,Jhe. Defendant . ... filed·.. a N. otice . .• and Memorandum: . . ' Addendum .. ' to . . PCRA/Reply to ~6tipti.. . , -: , . . •'

,".: :··· : r • ·,'. , . }·/' . · ·. to WithdrawAppe,ai·~ce . . . ,. .". o~ Augustio, . 20,15..·· OnA.~gust. . . . . . . . 27, 2015,this.Cotit -. .. •' '·. ·.. enteied . ~ Order . .. . : ·, . . . ~ I : .

·. .

··•· . . ··. ' ·~~ · ... . ~· instiucting' ~~~- t6mhionwe.atth_'to i~sponci.t.o the.:,~~f~ndan~~s Noti~e ·and¥e~ora,n~um/rB·e· . :·.·:. . ·,. ·:. . ',: .... , •.• t

Commori~eal~h filed its • . ; • . . . • », . •. · .. An~we~ on Septe~ber29;.2015.5 •• . ..-. . • . ' • • • ·. • • • • • On O~t~ber 23,' 20_15, D~fend~t filed ,'' ;_: ·,. . • : . . ·, ' • ' ~. . ' • . • . ._ • ·'· \. . ...... . . .;. . . ~ <. '. · . ·.. · .

. ,•. .:

a. Supplemental .... . . . . .. J~isdi~tion . . . Statemefit .for P,CJM.; ~-011. October ' '..?-9i 201~. . this . Court dismissed .·, .. . . the

Deferidihlt;s-PCRA concluding t~at it was'unji~ely .. ()~ December 10,-2015; D~fendat1t filed~· .. :•: :· .·

.·. Notice of Appeal," Motion to Proceed In Fo,,;,a Paupe;is.-(IFP) and St~teme~t of.Matters · . : ;;'· · .. ,··.: . _. . . , . .. . . . ·. . . . . . . .. . .

Complain~ of ~nAp~al. •• • •' The :lSS~~- is ~owripci'fpr,de~isi~p • ,. • • . inthls Opinion~d ', • I ~ '· • .Order ~f C~urt .. • ' • ·, '- • ~ •

.. ·,:·.·. , •tssUEiiusEo,i::'.' . . , .. '. ','\

Defendant raises a sole issue in his Con.cise Stat~me_nt. Defendant argues that his "rights .. ·: . :

. ~de~ the :Fifth ~d F ~tirte'e~th Atn~~dme~ts fo th~ U~tei:s~a~e~· Constitritio~ w~re' vi6l~te~ .-'. : .. ·. ·.·:· .: ';· ~-.. .-: . : : • . .· _. ·. :.- . . .. : . .. ' . ·, . ·. . . . . . . .. : . .· . . . . ·.... . . . . .' .. . ' . ·: :·; . .· : when the Commonwealth failed to bring [him] to trial. ~thin 180 days ofr~ceipt of [his] Request. · ;::

· for Final Disposition which. the Commonwealth . . . . accepted withj>rosecutor> s Acceptance . of Custody for Request of Final Disposition pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act . ·'.'.' :"·.

(IAD)." . Thus; Defendant , concludes his P.CRA Petition was . . unlawfully . dismissed. For the

following reasons, this Court disagrees. .... ,'.·_. ~· :' ~ : ·, ~ \

.·:· .· .... . ·,,.- .· .. : . .-.·· . .;.

3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988). 4 Commonwealthv. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). 5 The Commonwealth's Answer addresses the issues raised in the Defendant's Notice and Memorandum but appears to be improperly titled "Commonwealth's Answer to the Defendant's Petition for Credit Time." ·. 6 There appear to be issues regarding exactly when the Defendant filed his Notice of Appeal. The Court would note · that it did receive a document entitled "Notice of Appeal" that was dated on November 3, 2015, in the mail from the Defendant in early November of 20 l 5. ·

detenniJ~\vh~theithe ~ecisio~ of the: '.PCRA ~9urt·.-. "is supported by; evidence of r~c~rd and _is, . ··:·.:.··. ·-.. ' . . .· . .- ', · .. ·. . ', ·- -··.. · . . ·'. . ,· ..

. 'fre~ of i'egal ·r~tror/'· Co,ri,potrwedlthv_.' Rive;a, J ff A,3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. SupeL 2010) (cit~ti_~n; . . ()tniri~ct)t: Thesct)pe; ol' review· .. . ;." is/Jimited; .- , · .... the·:t;viewihii court must Yi~\V.· th.eJin4ings of. the: ". ·. · ... ,. ·.· ; ... ' . :·. ·.,_" ·.· . '_.- .. ·-. ·. _.·. . ... ··.. ._ ...

PCRAcourt iid_the:e~id¥1ce bf re~ord iri thelight''nipst favorablg ~o the prev~iling_p~ afthe, . :. :. ·-~-~1 · ._level:•••:·;,·Id,: ._.·; h~ d~cisio.n·· :or·· ~e/PCRA'· '..couri:·.·mal)e·;·af~rme<l-:''on_.:an; .·.gtOlllldS··. i~·-·_it .: is/,

· s..up~orted bythereco.rd.'', ldln.tht, 'c. aseof{putelf . .. . ·. ,· . ·. . . . . . l~g~l'qtl6;tion; . ·. . . the sfancfurdofieyiew is de . ; .....

See 90~1J1onwealthv., Patton, ~8? ·A.2d:1283;.li86 .··.

: The:IAJJ·is\fu agl'.eement between· fdttJ-eighfstates, the District of .·. ·. ~olumbia~ Puerto Rico; the Virgin Isfands,'and.the United States,> . . .· . ·-.th~fe,stablishesproG¢dUi:ySforthetransfer,of p:¢sonerSz:,;, ,.,_;'.\c·.i\i;:, : :::·· . . ' focarcerate4 in One jurisdiction.tothe temporary custody of another ..' ·- jurisdi'ctiofrwhich lfus',fodged'a detaip.era.gairista prispner; Unlike/ ·, ,. .; . . a request fot extradition, which is a request thatthe state' in wh,ich the pr~~otier is inc~c.etated:ttansfer c~st~dyto the reql!es,ting,state;<; -: a 4etamer is merely a' means. of infomiing the custodialjprisdiption that 'there are outstanding charges pendingin: anoth~tjurisdictfon :- ·. . · . . . arid a request to hold the prisoner for the requesting state· or notify' . . .. . . . "''."·-·· •••. c.'." ···: ··-,···· --~' " .... ;..; .. JQ~t!"~.qtJ<;.~!!!!&.§.!~t~ .QfJb.~.P.l]§9!1~'.~,immiJ!~p,tJ;~Je'.!;l$.~:"-·;;,.,,,.\;:.:~ ,·~·-'-:- ... . ,~'., .... ,. ,; ... ·-··'- ··, ·" ,..,.~ .,~ ,... _: ,.,,_._._.,., :··· "" ..

,3

: Commonwe~lth '. .; . v. Leak, 2'.fl\.,3d 10~6, 1039 {Pa.' Super.) citing 9ommori111eglt~y. Davis, 786 .' . _- '· ·. _..,. . 0 .• , . . • ~ ' •. . .. _·.• ' . _. . : ' ',• ._- • ·: ., ; •·.- ,_>'. ' • . • •; . . ., ·, .. I _- • . -~ :• .. • : . . '

. A,.2d 173' 17 5 (P~. doo 1). '.'Jb.¢ p:oii~y of the [I@] i~)~i iricqurage the expeditious' ~4 orderly . . . •.· . ; . : ' .: . . .. . . . . . . ; ·. ·. . ,'. : . .. . .. •. . :_ ' . ·. ·: . . . .' . . . . ,; . •. . .. . . . .. . ._..• _ . : . .~ . . . : . ' . ·... . . : .. ' . . - . . ,. . -_ ... i . . . . . . ·_ . ; -' . . . . : '. . '. .. : . . . . . . . . . : . -_ ·. . -. . .

.~.. . 1.spositi~n•. dfch~g~~ miJ.:iii•.·-P~<>se •.is·:_;o_'pf~;~t·~:·'Wd.:t~~!~t··~Bs'ri*;•:~eat~entind · ·. ., ·,

rehabilitati~n -...... ' .'' .. . programs ·_• _ i ·.' .. · ' by. ; eliwf~;ting " .. ·_,-•' '. : : ·. ,'. , ... ','; ·.. un~ri~riti¢;:ihi~4 :.- , ', · .., ' ,: '.' ( · , , · ·.: ~6cqm;any the fili~g ~f d~tainers.,, '; .·· , . :'. ,· -~-, :' .. ··:. ·: . ' . . ·, . · · I .' . ~- _· '· : · ": :. . • ·' "

. ·tommonwealt~ y;Horne, 89 . A.3d 277, 281(Pa:_Super. 2014{1'heD~feridlint avers that !4.e .·•conimo,nwe~th}pursuant t~·J\rt.1i1lfd:()f~~·i@1,- .. w~'.r~~#f'c1}ci:~ri~g;~lll.t~~~ . ~thin 180.·_ . : ' · ... :; ,· '· '..· ;. . ;, ·:\·.·;/.;( .• ' , ( . •.... .. >·:,: ,·,' <,'(:},:,·· \ )·.:,J., ; . '.};.:· _ ii. :· ... . days after he requested .f.inatdispo:si_t~on andthe C()Illin~IiW~~~g. ari:d qolll"t lp~ged a.detainer againsthim and it failed to do ~o.·s~e'./i'~;\!·1,1zchigan~· 507 lf~'. 43.(i 9~J)'.'(: : '

' Jnhis Concise Statement the Defendant highlights 'that 'the TAI) is a compact "wl1ic!i ·. establishes -~ contractual rela,tionship between signatory:·~{afos a~~wep -~~-it's [ sicJbeneficiajy, the , . , ._.·· ·>:·\· .- : . .. ~ ·'.":': 1 -.,: • • • •• \ . ·: •••• •.•• ; ·, '.. ·.:·:· •.•... • •• , •• , ., •••• • • •. · •.•• ·f: .,.. . ".: , : · ... : · , ~··. -~ __:;.: ··, · .. _.. r ·. · · . ·• . · . ·

. . . defendant or prisoner." Def.' s Concise St~temeflt at 1. As result, a the Defeiidant asserts that: by . · appl;fui·4i.}~.-.6.s .. • • .• .. • . 4 .'.: · .. '·' . :,;· .' .~ • : . · -v §Q545(b):··.the ~inle i~fr.for.filing.a . ~ •• •.· • ..' :- '. • • . . -.' • ~' •,: •• ··: . •• • '. . ..• •. ;·. :_·: • ,· '. : .. ,.· ;~~ ' .• -:· ;' ' : • ·' ;~titi~n, tti6~~ 'wouiibe.: . :: ·. ·:· •• '· ••• •..•. '.· :. ; . ·:,:- _: ·.; < .. .' . . . . . .. '·..

· applying a law iinpairin;g ... ',· the._o~ligation of~. ~6ntfact ' '. '. .. . ·,. ,: .. ·.: · ....... . J~ yiplat!o.· ~ <?f~e U~i!~~!; $tate.s: .'· 1 •'' . . .. ·,.· . ., .·.. ,.· .. ·. ,·

Constitution. Additionally, : . . . . :•,-::_. .. •.·. Pefenctah~ a'.ss~it11at,this Com,t'~J{}¥itlip,lltjurisqictidn to·. :.accept. . . . '.. ·> .· : ;' .. ·:. .. . . . ' : . : >. ·. ~ ~·.;"t.:.<: ' ·.. ·.. . :· : ::: ... ·, . . .- : . . : . . . . . ·. ·.

his guilty pleahe entered on J anuary 24, .2Q q. . I. Waiver . .\.~. . . In response to the Defendanes assertionthat the PSRA) one-year tim~ limit is ..

· unconstitutional·. because it conflicts :.: .. with the requirements ..... . 'of the IA.D, the Commonwealth . , ·. ,· ·. ·· ·;. ' . .. . . : .

asserts . that the Defendant has alreadywaivedhis ·. . . .. .· rig4t~ 1.lll~~rthe lAD by entering a plea.in this, . . . . . . . .

matter. See Commonwealth v. Blackburn, . 414 A.2d 638, 64i' (Pa, Super.'J979). ··.' This Court.i: '.. .. -; . .·· . . . ·.· :· ,·:·: . . ·: :· .•.· .. .,,

agrees. Defendant asserts that the rights afforded t~ough the IAD are not \Vaivable. However, in · Blackburn our Superior Court stated:

7 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9101.

~.:.. ' ...... · .: . .<, < In the fuS~~fmatt~{~~ #eferid&-it dicl fite a Mo.~hti t()' DtSIIIiss P~uatlt to'42ipa, . ;··~.·. '' . ' C:~i.:§ . . . . . ·. .. 910 I (Agteeirtent ~fi dbi~i?eti) ~ii-'D.eceJrib6t2i; 20·i;fi The 'Coririho't1~e'i1th fil~tar1 Atiswer tcf . . . '·>.-':/\/.-' ::·:-· ,~

·. ttr:~;:::~:~~t i!t~:~ii~~;ti;i!~;tt :t:er;riJ~.• ':·./i.' :.. :/,.. ;".\:. .;··:/:. ~:. ,·. . : .·.,',;' ,. •.'

2 2

, D~fendmjt filed a pr~ se' i~otion.. 'for Modifib'ati~~ of Serit~~~~'. o~ Feb,ruary . -8~ 2012. Judge . ..... · ·.•. ,.','.·'· . .- '··: , '

· H¢hi;,.;. denied the M~~o{on~i, 2{2~ 12. ri;fendai,i¥ci lliii !!ppeai ari<,[ tli~refoie hi, '• ·• ' '. -· judgment became final on Aprnis,. . . ' : . . ·. . ·. .2.ofa. Thus, becausethe ·.··.-,·.. . . . . . 'neieil~t'ai1owed '. . .· . his judgin-(:nt . . ' to .

· · .·. be~ome- fuial llfl:erp'te~di~Wif1yflt!,i,fhl) ;1~f ~ J&v.;,r,fs ~y\W,;iot !lie defencfili( hi . · . . . ·<·,, . : : :·... -. -.". . / · . ·::: · . .:._: ··~<:·: '. -·<,;:._-.:·,/._:. :,:: ·.:· /,~.-:·L·:·.· =.: ·:.:,' ·.:i.. >· _:-:.':·:·.\\: ·.·'. ·<· ,, · ·.: ". < · · ·: :·.·r ·,. · ·· · :- ·· _:., '. ., -_:·...- ·.: · .-.. ·. · . .,, Blackburn who failed to file-a motion to dismiss, Consequently, this Court agrees with the

Commonwealth that the PcRA~ s 011ec.y~dr oWi{iimff is hoiimcoristifutiorial for li~tirtg reli6ffor· ; . the Defen~t forissues he Has aliei<ly WaivecL : .. ., . ..... v,···~, -~ .. ··-'•·• _· ... ., ..,..,, , .... ··.. ·:,"·.,..· _-··" .,•.,,.,.,•"-: ..·.

II. Jurisdiction · . ,

. Itis an apodi6tic rulein Pennsylvaniathat a.co~ lacks jurisdiction to consider and rule on an untimely PCRA Petition. See Commonwealth v. Monaco, 992 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super.i;

5.

2010). Under42 pa.C;S,:§'Q~45, MY PC){Apetitiqr1,incllldi11gse:~011d . or.su1J~e;:que:nt_pe4ti()OS, . . . .. . . . . . ·.· ",: .

.· must be filed within on.~.year of'jhe d~te the,defendant) jt1dgni~n~ became final. A defendant' s .....

. j~dgm~nt'b,e,sa~esJi,t1al'•t'.'at trie:.~o~clusion gf direct ~eyi~w,j~~i~4ini discretionary review iii . ·. th~SupremiC~~~- .. rifth{U~ite<l$t~tes . an4tb.e ~upreiµe Co~r(<>f Pe1Wsylyarria,·or at the. .. . ·-:·., ~ ·, : . . . . . . . -· .. ......

. eipjration of tirn~.. fofs¢~~ng ·,·:--··:.··_:_.-. tll~ review." _._·.·._ ·- "42i~.:c.s. § ~5f5(b)(3). ... ,-.- A'ctefe~danJmay -:.- ., avoid the · .. ·_ .. · .. ·.:· .... " ; .· .- ... ·:': .. .. _.· .... ' .... · · ... ;, . . .

· one-year; tiroeJ)ar .toJUe hi$ !>CR.A,. J?etitio11 by properly e:~t,~bH~hing ope of the, following 0 · ·~"·, ." ·' ••• • • , •• •• · • :· ·,. ,: • i ,- ; ··. · ·, _' ,;, · · · ., -. · . _ · •. ·, , ·.-•· ,' "·.' . . ,, . , ·. ._: . : ., ·.: . ,;• . - .. , : ·. . ,, , -'. :·,. ..", , . .'

.exceptions.under§ .9545(~t.:_:.

Ii) tlleJailill."e to raise the claim previously :"as the l'e~lJ.lt ~fpiterfere_r1ce by ·. . government officials with the presentation of the' claim in violation'of the . . . · . . ' Constitu.tion or laws of thi~ Commonwealth br the Constitution·or laws of the United·.;·.

, (ii)Jh~J~ctsJ~pop »'rich, the cl~ is" predicated ~er~ unknown to, the petitionerand ·.· ~ouic(not .haye b6e~ .·: .. as~ert~ined by the exercise "of due" diligence; ·:·: ·. ;· or.·.· .. · ' '. . . . . . . . ·'

.:.~·~.\t·; . · ', :{·:':" tll~ .·. ·, (Iii) right ~sbrteci fa a constitutional right that was rnc~gnized the Supreme by . · . < . Court:_dftll.e'UnitedStates or the Supreme. Collrl Perinsylvaniaaftetthe time period. · .. of · · . > •· •· . ptovide4?~:- :-:/:: t.his s_ection .., ,. ' and-~.. been held by that. ·.··"c:,: ourt ·. ,{ ...... ;··. '·<'; ··:(_: to apply retro actively. · · . : · . · • ·.· · · ' .

. Initially, tfu.~: Gbur{must ascertain if we have proper jurisdiction to consider and ru1e on . •• : ,' • •• • •• • •••• ••• •• '. ;. • • •• '· '; •• • • • • .• • 0

the Deferid~i·s PCRA.' The Defendant appears to'concede thathis PCRA. Petition was filed after . his judgment was final for over a year and thus is untimely pursuant to 42 Pa'. C.S. 9545(b ).

However, the Defe~d.artt . ar~es that he entitl~·d . . . . to an exceptib~iothe one-year: time bar purs~anf ·, . . . . ' . ·. • . • • . . . ' . : :· .. ·. ! .•. \ .. · .. · . . . " . . . ' . ; . . . -. :;. . . ... · :· '

to the statutory after-discovered evidence exceptioncodified in§ 9545(b)(ii).

. Specifically, Defendant ,· . a~er; that he may invoke the . after-disc6vecy.exception tin the >. : .. .··. ·.. . . . . . . . .

. basis that hehad a mental incompetencywhich prevented him from"disc:overing the factual basis for certain clai~s he would have timely raised on collateral review. See Def.' s Notice and Memo._8/20/15 at 3 .. Defendant states he suffered from undiagnosed ~d untreated Grav~s'

:~~~1~~~tt:~~~:tr:zw~:h~~;·~~menwrf) '>, Id. •· Additfonhlly; pursutriit t~ 'ca~niohie~lthf Crui/Sii A:2d 287 (Pa>~004), Defoncl~r· ·, ·. •· .-_.-·_ • .,, . •· ,· •• i • ·•. . . · .• '··: .. ;_.'' .•·• .- •·· • • . • ., .. ·.-_· ••

'argues he shoi1id' be gi"eh -th~;oipoitultlt)'t~·prove.· at a he:aiing tllat hi~ ~raves' dise#e:~med·.·- - . th.~tHriely assertion' of the fa6t~' oh whl~h his PCM is prerhised.'JcL l)eferiilitnt also aSksthls·' ; .. cotrrt to app6ih{ari ex~~it vVitness:wn6 spedMizes_m qtates' <lise~se or pro;ide'ltlm ~itli;the - .-.-.-.. - ...:- ·-·.·- .. :- : '. -. . - :."·, '· "'•.1,;,· .. · :' . ,· :·- .. - ·. : ... ' ,. · .. \ .'·,:. ···: ·.·.'· . ··.:. ·. . •.·

fiirt~ foobtajn one. Id. at ~: Fm,aily, D~fendant claims that his PCRA Counsel, 'Attorney : ' ·-. :\ · . -. Setribfleh,was ineffectite bec~use h~ 'r~ledtoj,roperly iifrestigatetlie_ Defendanfit.Gf~yes~.

_- cliseas~: aiJ.4 its effect on his alleged mental in.competency.•. ,; . _

\; : ~. ;~ri~t:t,:::i~1;tt;1;:j1ir:::r;;ittr~L - . . · murdered ·. .: ·. •.:: '·....

thre{findivi<iuals. andthe'n"attern.pted· ·.- :.·' .: · · .· · .· -~ . . .; ··:: .··.. ·. ·_,:. ._ . .. . ··;. ·suicicl¢ by ~hdbtirig :··', · . ,·:: ,::: ": ·.,,:-,.. . ·. ·.···c,··"·., : himself .· In.the ·.· . . . ·. he~d.: ..cruz~ 852. - . - ..: ·.: ·.. ·. , .... :.1·.- · , . : . '· ..

A.2d ' ~t488 ;>:···· .:·.· .. Tlie ])efe11tlar1t · · ·". ·:.·I·.'·.·.<· sJ&ivedand ~·:..;_.:· '. ' eyetittially'·-. p:::_..·:. . \::_ ~·:._;·;.·:·.- '·:' le4'~',. ~Zid&nte~dere _' · . ·-.: .", ._._.". ·,·. tb:t .. :,three :_.·:;.·.:·.<."· courits°'of ':.";.·.,~.- ~., :"i:. .. ··: ·>:

_se6bni'degree·murd~r. ld.H~~~ver/the .shd~ting jncidenf~:ausyµ.*e d~f¢hdiint signifi9ant:braµr -•· · .· ,•' -. 1, • ', • I'' • ' < .' ·.·, • ·=.'.·.-,· .. ', '' -; ' ',,'·•,I=,-:''•,',·.·:,·: ':. ' '. '.\ .: ,·._.:. ,·., "• • -.': • .·• '•, ,"' '' --:·· • .··· ,.·, • :: ··: .. • •) "• •

damage' so rritigh so that at his plea .. hearing.his counsel. stated th:a. t the Defendant could ~ot .. · . ·. ·.· .. . '··. ·. . . . ' •.· '. ' •' .. :·· . .. ·· ... ;, . C- - · .

·-''". ":·,···,_, . ,. ..-~~expres~. 'etnoti<lns.~dxeall¥,- . . ._.:" . . -. . d,isguss~~e. ~~ facts,.O:. .£.this,cas~,ih,an¥-S()r,1,,of~sensibl(}· . . .· :. .·. •.· : . .. Way:J.fdi·~~-""'.-·;·· ·,>·~····,"·,,·········'··,•· ······· .. .,... .. : . . ·. . . . '. : } . . . . . ' . ; ; :· . ·. _: . . .. ' . . : . ,- : ,." ·. . ..

On coli~teral· attack, .the defendant in Cr~z claimed that his untimely PCRA Petition fell ·d,. ., ·.• . . .. . ·.· ·. . ' '·: ·• . .. ; ·.

. within the statutory-after. discovered .. evidence exception .· beca~se his brain damage att4,e ~- time of ·. . . . .. : .. . . . .· . .. . . '.

·:$e pleaheilin.gand ci_uri~g the,proper .appeal time period r~hd~r~.d ~.incon.1pet~nt. Inf1,n.cling: · >. ' . . ·. . .·:. . , -_;- .. ·_, . ._. '. . ,· ... ,·. . · _ "_\ ·.-:· .. . .· . ·.· .· .-. .-· ._ . :_ '.. '·'.. ' . 1,:. ~. ·. . . . .' . . . ·. -·.. . .. ·._·:' . . : .. :·- ·' .·

. .that the exception applied to tli~_defend~t. our Supreme .Gm1rt' held ,µiat "inlight of thelanguage .... · '._ ... ·.· ·-.-._ .... _:·'·. :<< ... -.·· .-- -._-_ .. -.·_.· .· ·:·: ·.; ,.·.·. _ _.·.:._. :-·,.- . · - .. ·. ·. :_ ·.· ....... ;, ·.. _, ·. ,_' _. ·.-· ..... : ·.·· ·: ·- .· . ': .. ·.· ·."•,•',_' - .· .· . -·.·, .. -_ .. · .· -·:· .·_ ... · ·._ r- · .. ·. .- ...

aJ1d · • · . . · of.:the.. exc~ti91{the 0

uniqt1e , .' ··,-.· .·:".y·-·:., .. -· . . . ~_;·_.-,:··.·:·,·,_·".:',;·::··,_·~ n~t&e: of clairns -:_.: ·~·· .: .· · <··>· so~ding\11 lncompeience, · __, , :-:.-:_· . -. :.· -_. -_. _ ' - . ·.·.· . this' ·- Court's . -=.-··\··,.,,.·.::-·; .·· '.

. ·.·. . . ' . ·: .· . c . . . _\ . .· . .. . . . . . . . ·, . . . . ·. discussion.in Qo,nmpnwealthy, . .. .· -_, Haag, ,.··. 8Q9.A,.2d 27l(fa;2002), [the defendantj.should .,. ·.·· .··- be·'·:· .. · _ ··· .-,·;.-:· .. - . ·,, ·. ,_ ..·· .. ,,; , .. .. . , .·.··._ .. •, ''· . . ..- -: . -· ·' ··:·- ·,.-.'._· ·.

... ·affo~ded,. ';"._.:.- ~-~:~:-·~._._.:.·': ~ppprturtityj~:~ne111p,tt9 '. : :;_::_::_·.·:-:,._._.·.-· . · __:·.~·, p~6ve th~the'_wa~ _..,_.-, .. , _: _··'. __ _ ,incompet¢nta~· ' .. "';:._;:,· ·>· .·-· ,: the· ~ilevant .. - ·- •.·.·.·_:_. .' :::··'~- ···.·. _·.· .. · .. tirn6s .and . ?····.·. ·:· ···: ·.·-

· .time-1:>a.r.'"Jd. atr. "',297. '· . . . lJltimately, . : .- . :':,'..:. -· .'. : : '. ·. _:- .r: .": ··; ... .I, .:: .. : =-- . . . the defendant in Cruz:was able to. a present psychiah'ist who . .· · . -·. ··'·· - .. · i ·-:. ·-:-- ·, _·.. . .. . .·,, ·· ·.-·. : ··-.-:~:., .•· ·. .·. ·. • • ;_. .· .• •, ··:.· · .. ;_ :·.·,-_ ". .' ·• :: .... '_.. '. , . _.: ,, ·., ·. ', ..... ; .

testified th~t lie was '1fl~ble)o understand the.· events at his plea he.aring. TJ:\e D~f~~dant in the •.. ·_:._.:· .' ··,- ·.:_ ::-·· .. :I·:,'·· '1,._;_·;. :.·· ._· . '• : -. · ... _-:, . ,·. ·.· .... ·.. :._._ .... ·.' . ,'' ': .... · .. ·····', · ·: ·,._ '•;

instant matter appears . ... to assert ·., in. . his Notice _.-:- arid Memorandum .that.his case is analogous ·:. . . "· to ' ·.· ._·., ·.· ... .- :· , .... ·- . . .· .. · ·. ,··. ·.. ," .. ..... Cruz. . . · . ·,.

an.cl h6 shoµld k ·affon:I~ci'a siihilar opporturi{ty.tci m u*_ate howhis incompetence pf vented .him. : •• :. •• ": .·'· A•·~·' . • '(<. . ·.. •". : • ,' •"• '.", : •: ' '' • • :: ' • •' ':. • • ,: :, • ·. • • .· • ..,.. '• ; • • • '•, • ' • '' .·•.: '. . • ' . • • ·. •' .: ': ': • ; '" ' ", :. ' • '• '. '. ·'; ' :• •. : ': ",• .- :,• ,'. •

•-, .· :'l·-.,,eanring ·_··_ the. faqt11nec~~sary to support . ··•.·· · :··· ··--~:--·=·:_·'-· .:':-:--:;:.-·~·--··· _:;-_-_· -·: :· .$.e..:._,; claim upon which·.·.• __ · · .: _-:. ~_'.· '.·.·'-:.··· . · : . . ". his P~U Petition. is bas~d.. ,. •. ·.\:',· -~. · .. ~,:-_. '. ,'_.·:::· ·.-.:·.'·.· ', ' _:_.-_. ·_: r ( ' •, In response ~... the Commonwealth 'di~s Monaco 'Which this' Court ·' .. . finds f~ much .. ~alogous . ' ' ' '- . :- -~· ..

. . to th~ instant matter than Cru.z.In. Monaco, the. defendant suffer~.cl from Post-Traumatic Stres~.. ; . ·.· - . :. •. .. ·•• . • ,·. ' • ' •. ' ·_ ,: , ·' . '.' ~ : . ._,- ·. ;: _:; .. : .' .. I ,' .• • .. ': ~-: • . '. . ' · .. •..- ·:.: . -~ •. ,·.. _ .., _,l .. · •.- '· .:·. • ..· ' • ' : : .;·, .--·: ' .• '. .., ·: . . . ,.-·-·.· _'.. . .. ·: .;. : ·' •' ..• '· .·.: ·: :·· ·. ': : : ' •

. : . Dis_6rder '(PT~I))an4 a~empt~d}'to in;vpke an·~xceptign toJh~ _time restrictions. pfthe PCRA~ .

arguing ·:. . the fact . of his' PTSD diagnosis [were . . . : j . . ·.. . ·• . ·.· unlmovr.n to him and coul,q not have been ·. . ·.. . . ·.

ascertained by the exe;cise.of duia;<liJigence." Monoaco, 99~ A.2q at 10,81. Ultimately, our,, . ' .

. Supreme Court rejected this ~gumept finding that C.the p~titioner's claim did not fall within the.

· Cruz holding · .. · . be. . . cause . . the petitioner . ' . failed . to alleg~Jlis ' . . post-traumatic, . . . stress .. disorder 'impaired

<·. his mental abiHty torai~e . .· prcqrnrnuni~~te . . his claim."' . Id. . at 1,0~2-1083 ... · .... · · ·., ·. .· . . .

. . • Unlik,e Monaco ,thelPefendapt here·does actu~ly allege that his Graves, disease impaired . . . . . • · ... ·. · ..... -;· _:· .···:._' . . ,· ... ·.-:_ .·". ·,·· -1._, .'·.·. ·• . .-: . . . ·. . . . ·. •.. . ..... ' '.'

. his . . mental ability to raise his claim .· and learn the facts necessary to suppprt .the claim upon which. . . . . .. .

it is-based. However, as correctly highlighted by the Commonwealth, the Defendant fails to

properly identify what after-discovered eyidence his alleged incompetence prevented him from

r:

. tilhely }Jisiri~.Jni~~t, 'the rebor<f i~ cl~arthat 't'hJ prirriary facts Upori\v}#~li the 'Deferidani'(· • <,. .·' ... ·;:··

. Specifically, di'~rb i; littt'e dotiht that the l)~fendani laieW about th~ fact~'reg~dfrig his iAD' ·'.: ; .: cfaim; . .which. ~ II1akes tJ· the sub:stariti~e basis of ~s c:mrent' PCRA'Petiti()Ii:. . . . . . . attlie ti~e he. ent~red: ,: . ·. . . . . . . . . . . .. ' . . : . ... . ; . .· . . . '· .. .·.. : . :·

. ·.. his·. guiltyplea: ..... · After a1'r;·tile:defepdariffil;d I{Motidn~ . .... tcfD1srniss~uant\842 .. · ' Pa. C.S:910t .. .. , .. ·· . <; . •. •, ·. .·. : . . _. ·.'·· ,:.· . •. _.· ' ... ·· .

· · ·c1~~em~hi:'~r·· IJetaine,r:s)··ie,ss't~'a.mo,nlli bef()!e ·h~ ehter~d .·his' 'grill~ .plea''.·°t:f~z .• (ifct~ariy·:· · .. . di'stkgui~hiible frd~\1i~··1rist~tmatte~ as the facts>there'rt1ak6 itcleafthatthe d~feh~t'sbt~in .·.· ·. ·:·. .. . .. '' ,. . . . •' . . '· ... :. :~<:. . · . ·.d. amage cau~~d liini. tob6·. incomMt6rttafthe :. . .' plea hea.ririg· and diiring thi appli9abfe tilll~ly.periof ···.. ;, . ;, ·::. ·.· .: ' . · .. _·; . .. . •'... ' •· ..... ··· .. : .· ' .

. . .·•. . to rErlsif his' cfaims'bri· c:oliatcif~l· attac!(. In dontrast, th~re'is no qtiestioij 'th~t the Defen.dant heil .: ,, ·.· ·.,.,:·... i.; ' . ·:·,···' . ,: ·. . . . /;,:·. ;·.'' ,_.-:.• ... ; ..

w~s cognizant of the fact~ necessruj to s~pport his Im .claim at hi~ plea hearing: which is the . - ·.. ,. ; .. •' .

. • . ·,· ·b~sisf6r··~s·.i11siabt•I>:C~·:p~ii~bri'.·• chns~qtien~i·t1ii·~· · ¢8urt .• firtd;•·th;tt_li~:a~~t~cu°scovered:::1:),.i . · .••· .. ·.· ,., '. ••.: ': ._:,/-··.: . ':· .· . . · · , '. :_.·..• : / ,.:,: . ; ·• · . ·.' · .: · i:.f' \ . :.·: . ·. \:• / :'; . • '·: '<'.; ··: .. , '"'i;,::i··· ·.· . ·:, \·-: eyi4e:ri¢e·~ifoepti ori'qoes' not apply tqthe .D~f~n~('and: his curren,t,PCRA'p·~~itl'ori '. .. :,,.· . . ·.·:,·· ..... ·.. .v, .· •. '. . . . . .;·,: ·:' ,• . is uritiin,ely. .'.·:

; . . '·t. ; . k ' . ·• • ..... ' ·~.

Furthermore~· Attorney Sembach cannot be found t~ be ineffective for. failing.tq· raise the': . ·, · ·;,;~,J~~rJ~ilfu deie'rtruin(~irts.S;{c1~.,,,bilar1~t:.Tifzei 1sJi~:zJ· 649°Ja:· 2061 t• ._.., .

. ·..... , Ct>urt lacksjurisdictiontc>;corisid~r' arid rule on the DefenCUU1.t's PCRAPetition'as it ls .Witiineiy': ·. . and th&I)~f~hclarit . .... '· · Ii~ failed to sh6w . that he· is . entitl~d fo.. any of the exc~pti<>ri~'uridet'§ :· .. 9545(c). 8 ·,• ·.· ··.··.. .. :· . . . · ....

---··:···,. .., ~;Iher~fqrf,Jhi.C.plrr.tresp.e.ctfully:r.equest's,.the~appeal.be;distnissed;and.the . Superfor.Court.a:fflirrii c~., ; ~-.,~.c·: ,_. , ~. . . . .

our prior Order :deriyirig reliefurider the PCRA. . BThe Court~ti~ldalso notethat ~ven.if~e were to.addre~s~e:sub~~c~ ofDefendant'sIAD craih/we wo~1ld find . it meritless for the reasons articulated in the Commonwealth's Answer to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss . Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101 (Agreement on Detainers) and Motion for BaH Reduction filed on January 5, 2012·.

. ' . -~ .. .· : . ·.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39Tff JUDICIAL DISTIUCT OF. .. . '. P~NNSYLVANIA- FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH .:. ·. . . . . Coµimonw~al~ of :Peiprsylvania, · :· ·: . CRIMINAL ACTION . · .··. . ·. . : . .. . .· : ... . ~ '. : ·. ,: ~ . :, · . ~

.·· vs. . . : .: ., No: 1614".'2011 r·: ' ... . ·: . . .,. ' . : . :~"' . : ·:. ~ .: . . Lenne LaRu~, III, . . .· . : . . . . . '\·.··

·. . ·. : .' Defendant . .. Honorable ... Caroii>v~~ . . .. ~.;' . . ;·_ H~rn. . .· .i.. · . · . • .. I_•;', · .. ~. . . .. . ~. . .. I" •

' : : . OR.DER OF COURT '. - .. · . . . .. .. :···. . . ~ . .. ··.. . .' . . .. •

. . ·. · ·. ·· AND NOW TIDS &DAY OF January, 2016,pursuant.to Pa: R.A.P .. 193l(c),

· · ·. rr IS )IEREBY ORDEimD THA,'.I' the Clerk of Court~ off';~lin County· · ·.·. -. •.1',

.. shallpromptlytransmit to the ProthonotaryoftheSuperior Court therecord inthis matter ·. .- .along with . the· attachedOpinicnser , Pa. I·:, R.A.P.·1925(a) ,• .• ,• ... ', ·. .: . • · ,·; . •.: . ,,..: .- : . • - · • I -. ,:_-· ',

. . Pursi/ant.to)'q .. R: Crim. P._ 1141 the Clerk of Courts shazi'i*''rrtectiaiely docket/his · _ . . Opinionand Order of Court and record inthe docket the date it was.made. · The Clerk shall: .. · .

. . _;, ,-_. forthwith furnish. a copy of the Opinion and Order of Court, by mail or personaldelivery, to. each . . . ; .· :_ . party or attorney, andshall record in the docket the timeand manner thereof ' -

'_. •., . By the Court,' ; .: ·. ·. · .: ·

. Carol L. Van Hom, P .J.

copies: Zachary Mills., Esq., Assistant District Attorney Lennc Larue, III, Esq., Defendant ·

Footnotes

[2] 2 , D~fendmjt filed a pr~ se' i~otion.. 'for Modifib'ati~~ of Serit~~~~'. o~ Feb,ruary . -8~ 2012. Judge . ..... · ·.•. ,.','.·'· . .- '··: , ' · H¢hi;,.;. denied the M~~o{on~i, 2{2~ 12. ri;fendai,i¥ci lliii !!ppeai ari<,[ tli~refoie hi, '• ·• ' '. -· judgment became final on Aprnis,. . . ' : . . ·. . ·. .2.ofa. Thus, becausethe ·.··.-,·.. . . . . . 'neieil~t'ai1owed '. . .· . his judgin-(:nt . . ' to . · · .·. be~ome- fuial llfl:erp'te~di~Wif1yflt!,i,fhl) ;1~f ~ J&v.;,r,fs ~y\W,;iot !lie defencfili( hi . · . . . ·<·,, . : : :·... -. -.". . / · . ·::: · . .:._: ··~<:·: '. -·<,;:._-.:·,/._:. :,:: ·.:· /,~.-:·L·:·.· =.: ·:.:,' ·.:i.. >· _:-:.':·:·.\\: ·.·'. ·<· ,, · ·.: ". < · · ·: :·.·r ·,. · ·· · :- ·· _:., '. ., -_:·...- ·.: · .-.. ·. · . .,, Blackburn who failed to file-a motion to dismiss, Consequently, this Court agrees with the Commonwealth that the PcRA~ s 011ec.y~dr oWi{iimff is hoiimcoristifutiorial for li~tirtg reli6ffor· ; . the Defen~t forissues he Has aliei<ly WaivecL : .. ., . ..... v,···~, -~ .. ··-'•·• _· ... ., ..,..,, , .... ··.. ·:,"·.,..· _-··" .,•.,,.,.,•"-: ..·. II. Jurisdiction · . , . Itis an apodi6tic rulein Pennsylvaniathat a.co~ lacks jurisdiction to consider and rule on an untimely PCRA Petition. See Commonwealth v. Monaco, 992 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super.i; 5. .· must be filed within on.~.year of'jhe d~te the,defendant) jt1dgni~n~ became final. A defendant' s ..... . j~dgm~nt'b,e,sa~esJi,t1al'•t'.'at trie:.~o~clusion gf direct ~eyi~w,j~~i~4ini discretionary review iii . ·. th~SupremiC~~~- .. rifth{U~ite<l$t~tes . an4tb.e ~upreiµe Co~r(<>f Pe1Wsylyarria,·or at the. .. . ·-:·., ~ ·, : . . . . . . . -· .. ...... . eipjration of tirn~.. fofs¢~~ng ·,·:--··:.··_:_.-. tll~ review." _._·.·._ ·- "42i~.:c.s. § ~5f5(b)(3). ... ,-.- A'ctefe~danJmay -:.- ., avoid the · .. ·_ .. · .. ·.:· .... " ; .· .- ... ·:': .. .. _.· .... ' .... · · ... ;, . . . · one-year; tiroeJ)ar .toJUe hi$ !>CR.A,. J?etitio11 by properly e:~t,~bH~hing ope of the, following 0 · ·~"·, ." ·' ••• • • , •• •• · • :· ·,. ,: • i ,- ; ··. · ·, _' ,;, · · · ., -. · . _ · •. ·, , ·.-•· ,' "·.' . . ,, . , ·. ._: . : ., ·.: . ,;• . - .. , : ·. . ,, , -'. :·,. ..", , . .' .exceptions.under§ .9545(~t.:_:. Ii) tlleJailill."e to raise the claim previously :"as the l'e~lJ.lt ~fpiterfere_r1ce by ·. . government officials with the presentation of the' claim in violation'of the . . . · . . ' Constitu.tion or laws of thi~ Commonwealth br the Constitution·or laws of the United·.;·. , (ii)Jh~J~ctsJ~pop »'rich, the cl~ is" predicated ~er~ unknown to, the petitionerand ·.· ~ouic(not .haye b6e~ .·: .. as~ert~ined by the exercise "of due" diligence; ·:·: ·. ;· or.·.· .. · ' '. . . . . . . . ·' .:.~·~.\t·; . · ', :{·:':" tll~ .·. ·, (Iii) right ~sbrteci fa a constitutional right that was rnc~gnized the Supreme by . · . < . Court:_dftll.e'UnitedStates or the Supreme. Collrl Perinsylvaniaaftetthe time period. · .. of · · . > •· •· . ptovide4?~:- :-:/:: t.his s_ection .., ,. ' and-~.. been held by that. ·.··"c:,: ourt ·. ,{ ...... ;··. '·<'; ··:(_: to apply retro actively. · · . : · . · • ·.· · · ' . . Initially, tfu.~: Gbur{must ascertain if we have proper jurisdiction to consider and ru1e on . •• : ,' • •• • •• • •••• ••• •• '. ;. • • •• '· '; •• • • • • .• • 0 the Deferid~i·s PCRA.' The Defendant appears to'concede thathis PCRA. Petition was filed after . his judgment was final for over a year and thus is untimely pursuant to 42 Pa'. C.S. 9545(b ). However, the Defe~d.artt . ar~es that he entitl~·d . . . . to an exceptib~iothe one-year: time bar purs~anf ·, . . . . ' . ·. • . • • . . . ' . : :· .. ·. ! .•. \ .. · .. · . . . " . . . ' . ; . . . -. :;. . . ... · :· ' to the statutory after-discovered evidence exceptioncodified in§ 9545(b)(ii). . Specifically, Defendant ,· . a~er; that he may invoke the . after-disc6vecy.exception tin the >. : .. .··. ·.. . . . . . . . . . basis that hehad a mental incompetencywhich prevented him from"disc:overing the factual basis for certain clai~s he would have timely raised on collateral review. See Def.' s Notice and Memo._8/20/15 at 3 .. Defendant states he suffered from undiagnosed ~d untreated Grav~s'