Com. v. Davis, R.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 12, 2024
• Docket: 2446 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S16018-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAFIYQ DAVIS : : Appellant : No. 2446 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 1, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009574-2008

BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2024

Rafiyq Davis (“Davis”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his

second petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”).1 Davis is no longer serving a sentence for the underlying conviction,

so he is not eligible for PCRA relief. Accordingly, we affirm the order

dismissing his petition.

In 2009, following his convictions for firearms offenses, the trial court

sentenced Davis to an aggregate sentence of three to six years’ imprisonment

followed by four years of probation. This Court affirmed Davis’ judgment of

sentence, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. See

Commonwealth v. Davis, 998 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished

memorandum), appeal denied, 9 A.3d 627 (Pa. 2010). In 2015, the trial court ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S16018-24

found Davis in violation of his probation, revoked his probation, and sentenced

him to six to twenty-four months’ incarceration followed by four years’

probation. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on July 20, 2016.

See Commonwealth v. Davis, 154 A.3d 861 (Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished

memorandum). Davis did not seek further review in our Supreme Court.

In January 2017, Davis filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA

court appointed counsel who filed a petition to withdraw from representation

and a “no-merit” letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 550 A.2d 213

(Pa. Super. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super.

1988) (en banc). In 2018, the PCRA court dismissed Davis’ petition. Davis

did not appeal the dismissal order.

On May 30, 2021, Davis filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his

second. On September 20, 2021, while the instant petition was pending,

Davis’ probationary sentence ended, and his supervision was terminated. In

July 2023, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to

dismiss the PCRA petition without a hearing on the basis that Davis was no

longer serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole in the case.

Davis filed a pro se response to the notice. On September 1, 2023, the PCRA

court dismissed Davis’ PCRA petition. On that same date, the PCRA court filed

an opinion in which it explained that, since Davis finished serving his sentence

in 2021, he was ineligible for relief under the PCRA pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A.

-2- J-S16018-24

§ 9543(a)(1)(i). See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/1/23, at 2.2 This timely appeal

followed. The PCRA court did not require Davis to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement, and he did not do so. In lieu of authoring a Rule 1925(a)

opinion, the PCRA court relied on its September 1, 2023 opinion.

Davis raises twenty-nine issues for our review. See Davis’ Brief at 1-2

(unnumbered); see also Davis’ Supplemental Brief at 1-2 (unnumbered).

However, given our disposition, we need not identify them.

Our standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is well-

settled: We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review plenary.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations

omitted).

____________________________________________

2 The PCRA court found that Davis completed his sentence on June 3, 2021.

See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/1/23, at 1. Based on our review of the record, we determine that date to be September 20, 2021. See APPD Supervision Completion Letter, 2/8/22, at 1 (unnumbered). In either case, Davis finished serving his sentence before the adjudication of the instant petition.

-3- J-S16018-24

The relevant requirements for PCRA eligibility in the instant case are as

follows:

(a) General rule.—To be eligible for relief under this subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following:

(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted:

(i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime[.]

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i); see also Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151

A.3d 1108, 1112-13 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding a petitioner becomes ineligible

for PCRA relief once he is no longer serving his sentence, regardless of

whether he was serving it when the petition was filed, or he was appealing

the PCRA court order); Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174, 1176

(Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa.

2006) (noting “[a]s soon as his sentence is completed, the petitioner becomes

ineligible for relief, regardless of whether he was serving his sentence when

he filed the petition”).

Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s determination that

Davis was ineligible for PCRA relief. Davis’ revocation sentence terminated on

September 20, 2021. Accordingly, since Davis was no longer serving a

sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole, he was not eligible for PCRA

relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). Thus, we affirm the order dismissing

Davis’ petition.

Order affirmed.

-4- J-S16018-24

Date: 8/12/2024

-5-