Commonwealth v. Murphy, 541 MDA 2017
Decision Date | 20 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 541 MDA 2017,541 MDA 2017 |
Citation | 180 A.3d 402 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edgar B. MURPHY, Jr., Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
180 A.3d 402
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee
v.
Edgar B. MURPHY, Jr., Appellant
No. 541 MDA 2017
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted November 20, 2017
Filed February 20, 2018
Edgar B. Murphy, Jr., appellant, pro se.
Ryan H. Lysaght, Assistant District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Edgar B. Murphy, Jr., appeals pro se from the post-conviction court's March 9, 2017 order denying, as untimely, his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 – 9546. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Briefly, in February of 2007, Appellant was convicted, following a jury trial, of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and indecent assault committed against his 33–year-old daughter. On November 8, 2007, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 to 20 years' incarceration. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on direct appeal, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant's subsequent petition for allowance of appeal on April 29, 2009. Commonwealth v. Murphy , 965 A.2d 299 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 601 Pa. 677, 970 A.2d 429 (2009). Accordingly, Appellant's judgment of sentence became final on July 28, 2009, at the conclusion of the ninety-day time-period for seeking review with the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (stating that a judgment of sentence becomes final at the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking the review); Commonwealth v. Owens , 718 A.2d 330, 331 (Pa. Super. 1998) (directing that under the PCRA, petitioner's judgment of sentence becomes final ninety days after our Supreme Court rejects
his or her petition for allowance of appeal since petitioner had ninety additional days to seek review with the United States Supreme Court).
Between 2009 and 2015, Appellant filed several PCRA petitions, all of which were denied. He filed the present, pro se petition on August 4, 2016, as well as multiple amendments/supplements to that petition, containing nearly 200 pages of argument. Ultimately, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant's petition, to which he filed several pro se responses. On March 9, 2017, the court issued the order denying Appellant's petition.
Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal with this Court. He also timely complied with the PCRA court's order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. In that five-page document, Appellant presented at least 33 issues and sub-issues. In his brief to this Court, Appellant sets forth 25 claims for our review.
However, before we may address the merits of any of those issues, we must begin by examining the timeliness of Appellant's petition, because the PCRA time limitations implicate our jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in order to address the merits of a petition. Commonwealth v. Bennett , 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (2007). Under the PCRA, any petition for post-conviction relief, including a second or subsequent one, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless one of the following exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)–(iii) applies:
(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 Constitution or laws of
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Kerns
...on December 26, 2017, which would be patently untimely as a PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). See also Commonwealth v. Murphy , 180 A.3d 402 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied , ––– Pa. ––––, 195 A.3d 559 (2018) (stating petitioner cannot rely on Muniz to meet timeliness exception ......
-
Commonwealth v. Greco
...from addressing the merits of his claim. See Trial Ct. Opinion (TCO), 03/08/2018, at 2-4 (citing in support Commonwealth v. Murphy , 180 A.3d 402, 405-06 (Pa.Super. 2018) (concluding that the substantive rule recognized in Muniz does not establish a timeliness exception to the PCRA) ).Greco......
-
Commonwealth v. Moose
...SORNA's registration provisions – unlike prior versions of Megan's Law – are properly considered under the PCRA"); Commonwealth v. Murphy , 180 A.3d 402, 405 (Pa. Super. 2018) (affirming the dismissal of an untimely PCRA petition and stating that the petitioner's "reliance on Muniz cannot s......
-
Schade v. McGinley, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-962
...because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not expressly held that Muniz applies retroactively. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Murphy, 180 A.3d 402, 405-06 (Pa. Super. 2018)). The Court further concluded that even if Muniz supported application of the exception in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii),......