Commonwealth v. Pena, 052920 PASUP, 1724 MDA 2019

Docket Nº:1724 MDA 2019
Opinion Judge:MURRAY, J.
Party Name:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROGELIO ZALDIVAR PENA Appellant
Judge Panel:BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.
Case Date:May 29, 2020
Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROGELIO ZALDIVAR PENA Appellant

No. 1724 MDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 29, 2020

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered September 25, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000942-2010

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J. [*]

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY, J.

Rogelio Zaldivar Pena (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order denying his pro se "Motion for Corrected Time Credit." We affirm.

This case has a lengthy and convoluted history. For purposes of this appeal, we recount that on January 6, 2011, a jury found Appellant guilty of third-degree murder, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501, and aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). On February 28, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years of incarceration.

On March 28, 2014, this Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Pena, 1499 MDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Mar. 28, 2014 (unpublished memorandum). On October 15, 2014, our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Pena, 110 A.3d 997, 241 MAL 2014 (Pa. 2014). Appellant did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Over the ensuing years, Appellant filed two unsuccessful petitions pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

On September 18, 2019, Appellant filed the underlying pro se "Motion for Corrected Time Credit" (Motion), in which he asserted that he did not receive credit for 288 days of time served prior to sentencing. Motion, 9/18/19, ¶ 5. On September 25, 2019, the court entered an order denying relief on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Motion because it was an untimely PCRA petition. See Trial Court Order, 9/25/19; see also Trial Court Opinion, 11/26/19, at 4-6. Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal to this Court.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for review: IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO TIME CREDIT, AND DID THE SENTENCING COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE SAME?

Appellant's Brief at 5.

Prior to addressing Appellant's issue, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction. Appellant identified his filing as a "Motion for Corrected Time Credit" and the court construed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP