Com. v. Amara, A.
This text of Com. v. Amara, A. (Com. v. Amara, A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S26006-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : : : ADRIAN K. AMARA : No. 126 MDA 2025
Appellant
Appeal from the Order Entered January 7, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006270-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., OLSON, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 4, 2025
Adrian K. Amara appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of York County, denying his petition filed pursuant to the
Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
Following trial, a jury convicted Amara of possession with intent to
distribute (PWID), criminal conspiracy-PWID, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced Amara on June 21, 2017, to eleven
to twenty-two years’ imprisonment. Amara filed a timely post-sentence
motion, which was denied. On appeal, this Court affirmed. See
Commonwealth v. Amara, 1730 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed April 10, 2019)
(unpublished memorandum decision). Amara did not seek allowance of
appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. J-S26006-25
Amara’s first, timely PCRA petition was dismissed as meritless after
counsel was permitted to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner,
544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.
Super. 1988) (en banc). Amara did not appeal from that order of dismissal.
On January 21, 2022, Amara filed a second pro se PCRA petition,
alleging that three members of the York County Drug Task Force who were
involved in the investigation leading to his arrest and who offered evidence at
his trial were subsequently dismissed for misconduct, and that this after-
discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial. See PCRA Petition, 1/21/22,
at 41. The PCRA court appointed counsel to file either an amended petition
or a Turner/Finley no-merit letter. Amara did not respond to counsel’s
withdrawal request or no-merit assessment. On June 9, 2022, the PCRA court
dismissed the petition without issuing a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to
dismiss. See Order, 6/9/22. The court adopted the reasoning of counsel’s
petition to withdraw as the basis for dismissal, and, by separate order entered
the same day, granted that petition. Amara appealed. On appeal, this Court
noted that:
[Amara] had made the request to file an amended statement in the PCRA court on December 14, 2022, and that the PCRA court had entered an order on December 19, 2022, indicating that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. By order of December 30, 2022, this Court (1) denied [Amara’s] application without prejudice for [Amara] to seek relief in the PCRA court, and (2) directed the PCRA court to rule on the merits of [Amara’s] December 14, 2022 petition within ten days.
-2- J-S26006-25
Commonwealth v. Amara, 943 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed July 14, 2023)
(unpublished memorandum decision), at 4 (emphasis added). The PCRA court
did not comply with this Court’s order. Id. As such, this Court ordered as
follows:
(1) [Amara] shall file of record and serve upon the PCRA court an amended Rule 1925(b) statement within twenty-one days of the date of this order. Any claims not asserted in the amended statement, including claims of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel, are waived[;] (2) [u]pon receipt of the amended statement, the PCRA court shall within thirty days supply an amended Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing any issues not covered by its prior opinion[;] (3) [t]he Clerk of Courts shall thereafter promptly certify and transmit the supplemental record to this Court. Upon receipt of the above documents, we shall determine whether new briefs or further remand is necessary.
Id. at 5-6 (emphasis added). The panel retained jurisdiction. Thereafter, the
PCRA court complied with this Court’s order, and we addressed Amara’s claims
of whether the PCRA court erred in denying admission of after-discovered
evidence and ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel.1 On collateral review, we found
Amara’s claims meritless and affirmed the PCRA court’s order. See id. at 10-
18. Amara did not file a petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court.
On September 27, 2024, Amara filed a pro se notice of intent to serve
____________________________________________
1 We note that Amara’s judgment of sentence became final in 2019 and that
the petition before the Court was filed in 2022. The PCRA court made no ruling on the timeliness of Amara’s PCRA petition, but appeared to have accepted PCRA counsel’s assessment that the petition was filed within one year of Amara discovering, upon the exercise of due diligence, the fact that members of the York County Drug Task Force were discharged for misconduct. See Petition to Withdraw, 6/6/22, at ¶¶ 24-32, Exhibits A-B.
-3- J-S26006-25
a subpoena to produce documents. On October 28, 2024, Amara filed three
pro se motions to compel (one directed to West Manchester Township Police
Department, one directed to the Pennsylvania State Police, and one directed
to Korey Leslie, Esquire). On November 14, 2024, Amara filed a pro se motion
to compel directed to the York County District Attorney’s Office. On January
7, 2025, the Honorable Kathleen J. Prendergast addressed these motions as
a PCRA petition, denying Amara’s requests. See Order, 1/7/25. See also 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9542; Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super.
2007) (all motions filed after judgment of sentence final to be construed as
PCRA petitions).2
On January 24, 2025, Amara filed a pro se notice of appeal from the
court’s January 7 order. He now raises the following issues:
1. Did the PCRA court err in denying Amara’s motions to compel?
2. Does a conflict of interest exist between the trial judge and Amara?
Appellant’s Brief, at 6 (reworded for clarity).
A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed
within one year of the date that the judgment of sentence becomes final,
except as otherwise provided by statute. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). As
noted above, Amara did not seek review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
from this Court’s April 10, 2019 affirmance of his judgment of sentence.
Therefore, Amara’s judgment of sentence became final on May 10, 2019, when ____________________________________________
2 Amara’s judgment of sentence became final on May 10, 2019. See infra, at 5.
-4- J-S26006-25
the time to file a petition for allowance of appeal expired. See Pa.R.A.P.
1113(a) (30–day period for filing petition for allowance of appeal from entry
of Superior Court order); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3) (“For purposes of this
subchapter, a judgment 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 at the expiration of time for seeking
the review.”). Thus, Amara had until May 10, 2020 to file any and all PCRA
petitions, unless he alleged and proved an exception to the one-year time
requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Amara has failed to do
so.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Amara, A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-amara-a-pasuperct-2025.