Commonwealth v. Travwick, 053117 PASUP, 1728 EDA 2016
|Docket Nº:||1728 EDA 2016|
|Opinion Judge:||SOLANO, J.|
|Party Name:||COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DAVID TRAVWICK Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SOLANO, J., and FITZGERALD, J.|
|Case Date:||May 31, 2017|
|Court:||Superior Court of Pennsylvania|
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order dated May 20, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0109001-2003
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SOLANO, J., and FITZGERALD, J. [*]
Appellant, David Travwick, appeals pro se from the order dismissing as untimely his fourth petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the procedural background of this case as follows:
On June 15, 2004, following a bench trial before this Court, [Appellant] was found guilty of murder of the third degree (F1), possessing instruments of crime (PIC) (M-1), and two counts of recklessly endangering another person (REAP) (M-2).
Sentencing was deferred until September 15, 2004, at which time [Appellant] was sentenced to a term of not less than 15 nor more than 40 years in prison. [Appellant] did not file post-sentence motions. On September 17, 2004, [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal. The Superior Court affirmed [Appellant's] judgment of sentence on November 28, 2005. [Appellant] did not petition for allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court.
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/7/16, at 1 (citation to notes of testimony and footnotes omitted).
In the past decade, Appellant has sought relief under the PCRA on three prior occasions and without success. He filed the pro se PCRA petition in this appeal - his fourth - on August 13, 2015. On April 6, 2016, the PCRA court sent Appellant notice of its intent to dismiss the petition as untimely pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. On May 20, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant presents a single issue for our review: Is Appellant's sentencing statute unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welch v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 1257; 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP