Com. v. Anderson, R.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 2, 2014
• Docket: 255 MDA 2014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A31010-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

RYAN LYNN ANDERSON,

Appellant No. 255 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered February 4, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0003450-2007

BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and STABILE, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 02, 2014

Ryan Lynn Anderson appeals from the order denying his fifth motion

for a new trial. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and

was sentenced on October 24, 2007 to 48 hours to six months

imprisonment. On November 7, 2008, we affirmed, and addressed the

merits of four issues. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 964 A.2d 933

(Pa.Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant then filed four pro

se motions for a new trial, which were denied. He appealed the denial of his

second, third, and fourth requests for a new trial. We affirmed in each

instance. We concluded that the motions had to be treated as PCRA

petitions, and ruled that Appellant was ineligible for PCRA relief since he had

completed his sentence on December 1, 2009. Commonwealth v. J-A31010-14

Anderson, 37 A.3d 1245 (Pa.Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum);

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 64 A.3d 22 (Pa.Super. 2012) (unpublished

memorandum); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 93 A.3d 514 (Pa.Super.

2013) (unpublished memorandum); see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i) (to be

eligible for PCRA relief, a defendant must be serving a sentence of

imprisonment, parole, or probation).

Appellant filed a fifth motion for new trial on January 9, 2014; it was

denied on January 29, 2014; this appeal followed. As outlined in our last

three memoranda, Appellant is no longer serving a sentence, and the denial

of his motion for a new trial, which is considered a PCRA petition, was proper

under the PCRA.

Appellant has also filed with this Court an application to file an appeal

nunc pro tunc. This request must be treated as a PCRA petition and

analyzed under the strictures of the PCRA. Commonwealth v. Fairiror,

809 A.2d 396 (Pa.Super. 2002). Since Appellant is not eligible for PCRA

relief, this request also must be denied.

Application for Permission to Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc denied.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/2/2014

-2-