Opinion
1849 EDA 2023 J-S47041-23
01-12-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRAY MURRAY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0402931-1982
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM
STEVENS, P.J.E.
Appellant Bray Murray appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying Appellant's petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).[ As Appellant's petition is untimely, we affirm.
In August 1982, a jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder and possessing an instrument of crime. In January 1983, the trial court granted Appellant's request for a new trial. After the Commonwealth appealed, this Court reversed and remanded the case for sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Murray, 488 A.2d 45 (Pa.Super. 1985).
On April 23, 1985, the trial court imposed a term of life imprisonment without parole on the murder charge and a consecutive term of 2½ to 5 years' imprisonment on the weapons charge. Appellant did not file an appeal.
On December 31, 1986, Appellant filed his first petition seeking post-conviction relief, which was dismissed. Appellant did not appeal. Appellant filed multiple unsuccessful petitions seeking post-conviction relief under the PCRA and its predecessor, the Post Conviction Hearing Act ("PCHA").
On May 18, 2022, Appellant filed the instant petition. On June 7, 2022, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On June 20, 2022, Appellant filed a response to the Rule 907 notice. On July 3, 2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely filed. This appeal followed.
We similarly cannot review the instant PCRA petition if it does not meet the PCRA timeliness requirements. It is well-established that "the PCRA's timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed; courts may not address the merits of the issues raised in a petition if it is not timely filed." Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589, 591 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citations omitted). Generally, a PCRA petition "including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date 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 or the expiration of the time for seeking the review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the petitioner explicitly pleads and proves one of the three exceptions enumerated in Section 9545(b)(1), which include: (1) the petitioner's inability to raise a claim as a result of governmental interference; (2) the discovery of previously unknown facts or evidence that would have supported a claim; or (3) a newly-recognized constitutional right that has been held to apply retroactively by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
In this case, Appellant's judgment of sentence became final in 1985 as Appellant did not file a direct appeal. Appellant filed the instant petition in 2022, approximately thirty-seven years later. As such, this petition is facially untimely and must invoke a timeliness exception to justify review.
Appellant argues that he is entitled to review under the newly discovered fact exception to the PCRA timeliness requirements. "To qualify for an exception to the PCRA's time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence." Commonwealth v. Burton, 638 Pa. 687, 705, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (2017) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)).
Appellant alleges that he only recently became aware of the 1988 dismissal of his initial petition seeking post-conviction relief as his original counsel failed to inform him of this information. We are unconvinced that this fact was unknown to him or that he could not have ascertained this information through due diligence within thirty-seven years of filing the instant petition. Appellant's own claim is belied by the fact that he filed multiple PCRA petitions after the denial of his first petition seeking post-conviction relief.
Our courts have emphasized that a petitioner must specifically plead and prove that one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions applies to the untimely petition in order to avoid the PCRA time bar. Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604, 609, 741 A.2d 1258, 1261 (1999). Accordingly, as Appellant has not proven that one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions applies to his petition, we conclude that neither this Court nor the PCRA court has jurisdiction to further consider Appellant's petition.
Order affirmed.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.