J-S06021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROBERT HALL : : Appellant : No. 1532 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 11, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0409511-1997
BEFORE: MOULTON, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2017
Appellant Robert Hall appeals from the order entered April 11, 2016,
denying as untimely his serial petition for relief filed under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
Following the 1997 murder of Edward Williams, a jury convicted
Appellant of second-degree murder, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and abuse
of a corpse.1 Appellant was sentenced to a mandatory term of life
imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on direct
appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for
allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hall, 750 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super.
1999), appeal denied, 759 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2000). ____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502, 3701, 903, 5510, respectively. J-S06021-17
In June 2001, Appellant filed his first petition for collateral relief. The
PCRA court dismissed the petition in June 2002. Appellant appealed. This
Court remanded for a Grazier2 hearing, and in September 2009, Appellant
was permitted to proceed pro se. In July 2003, this Court remanded the
case for a second time to allow consideration of Appellant’s additional
twenty-eight claims raised in response to the PCRA court’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
notice. Commonwealth v. Hall, 832 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(unpublished memorandum). In January 2004, following a review of the
additional claims the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition. This Court
affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Appellant’s petition
for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super.
2005), appeal denied, 895 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2006).
Appellant filed his second PCRA in November 2007, which was
dismissed by the PCRA Court in August 2008. This Court affirmed in August
2009. Commonwealth v. Hall, 984 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(unpublished memorandum). In July 2010, Appellant filed his third PCRA
petition, which was dismissed as untimely. This Court quashed Appellant’s
appeal in April 2014, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance
of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hall, 102 A.3d 546 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014). In
____________________________________________
2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-2- J-S06021-17
February 2015, Appellant filed his fourth PCRA petition, which was dismissed
as untimely; this Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Hall, 135 A.3d 648
(Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum).
Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his fifth, on February 10,
2016, seeking relief based upon new evidence. According to Appellant,
detectives met with him, apologized for his wrongful conviction and
suggested they had new evidence, which they could not disclose. PCRA
Petition, 2/10/16 at 4. In March 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P.
907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing.
Appellant filed a response to the dismissal notice. In April 2016, the PCRA
court dismissed Appellant’s petition without a hearing. In May 2016,
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant raises the following issues, restated for clarity:
1. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA Petition as untimely filed when the new facts from the homicide detectives and District Attorney exonerate Appellant?
2. Did the PCRA Court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely filed when the new facts from Elwood Quillen finalized his parole in the Joseph Dukuly case and exonerates Appellant?
3. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely filed when the new facts from Keith Brown, who was not available May 20, 1998, exonerate Appellant?
4. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when Kacenia Anderson provided false statements to authorities?
5. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when the new fact that Jose Miller was a paranoid
-3- J-S06021-17
schizophrenic and mentally incompetent was not public record and exonerates Appellant?
6. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when new forensic science technology exonerates Appellant?
7. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when the 911 calls reporting Elwood Quillen and the murder were not public record?
8. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when the new facts from Karen Byrd and Daniel Alva, Esq. exonerate Appellant?
Appellant’s Brief at vi – vii.
The standard of review regarding an order denying a petition under
the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the
evidence of the record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We afford the court’s factual
findings deference unless there is no support for them in the certified record.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 1275, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010)).
First, we address Appellant’s assertion that the PCRA court erred in
finding his petition untimely. Under the PCRA, all petitions seeking collateral
relief must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence
becomes final. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa.
2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638, 641 (1998)).
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on September 11,
2000, when the 90 day period for filing for writ of certiorari with the United
-4- J-S06021-17
States Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3); Sup. Ct. R.13.
The instant PCRA was filed on February 10, 2016; sixteen years after the
judgment of sentence became final.
Appellant’s petition is patently untimely, and for the court to have
jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant’s claims he must plead and
prove the applicability of one of the exceptions to the timeliness
requirement. See Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa.
2008) (“It is the Appellant’s burden to allege and prove that one of the
timeliness exceptions applies.”).
There are three statutory exceptions:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S06021-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROBERT HALL : : Appellant : No. 1532 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 11, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0409511-1997
BEFORE: MOULTON, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2017
Appellant Robert Hall appeals from the order entered April 11, 2016,
denying as untimely his serial petition for relief filed under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
Following the 1997 murder of Edward Williams, a jury convicted
Appellant of second-degree murder, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and abuse
of a corpse.1 Appellant was sentenced to a mandatory term of life
imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on direct
appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for
allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hall, 750 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super.
1999), appeal denied, 759 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2000). ____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502, 3701, 903, 5510, respectively. J-S06021-17
In June 2001, Appellant filed his first petition for collateral relief. The
PCRA court dismissed the petition in June 2002. Appellant appealed. This
Court remanded for a Grazier2 hearing, and in September 2009, Appellant
was permitted to proceed pro se. In July 2003, this Court remanded the
case for a second time to allow consideration of Appellant’s additional
twenty-eight claims raised in response to the PCRA court’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
notice. Commonwealth v. Hall, 832 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(unpublished memorandum). In January 2004, following a review of the
additional claims the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition. This Court
affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Appellant’s petition
for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super.
2005), appeal denied, 895 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2006).
Appellant filed his second PCRA in November 2007, which was
dismissed by the PCRA Court in August 2008. This Court affirmed in August
2009. Commonwealth v. Hall, 984 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(unpublished memorandum). In July 2010, Appellant filed his third PCRA
petition, which was dismissed as untimely. This Court quashed Appellant’s
appeal in April 2014, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance
of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hall, 102 A.3d 546 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014). In
____________________________________________
2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
-2- J-S06021-17
February 2015, Appellant filed his fourth PCRA petition, which was dismissed
as untimely; this Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Hall, 135 A.3d 648
(Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum).
Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his fifth, on February 10,
2016, seeking relief based upon new evidence. According to Appellant,
detectives met with him, apologized for his wrongful conviction and
suggested they had new evidence, which they could not disclose. PCRA
Petition, 2/10/16 at 4. In March 2016, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P.
907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing.
Appellant filed a response to the dismissal notice. In April 2016, the PCRA
court dismissed Appellant’s petition without a hearing. In May 2016,
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant raises the following issues, restated for clarity:
1. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA Petition as untimely filed when the new facts from the homicide detectives and District Attorney exonerate Appellant?
2. Did the PCRA Court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely filed when the new facts from Elwood Quillen finalized his parole in the Joseph Dukuly case and exonerates Appellant?
3. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely filed when the new facts from Keith Brown, who was not available May 20, 1998, exonerate Appellant?
4. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when Kacenia Anderson provided false statements to authorities?
5. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when the new fact that Jose Miller was a paranoid
-3- J-S06021-17
schizophrenic and mentally incompetent was not public record and exonerates Appellant?
6. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when new forensic science technology exonerates Appellant?
7. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when the 911 calls reporting Elwood Quillen and the murder were not public record?
8. Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely when the new facts from Karen Byrd and Daniel Alva, Esq. exonerate Appellant?
Appellant’s Brief at vi – vii.
The standard of review regarding an order denying a petition under
the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the
evidence of the record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v.
Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We afford the court’s factual
findings deference unless there is no support for them in the certified record.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 1275, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010)).
First, we address Appellant’s assertion that the PCRA court erred in
finding his petition untimely. Under the PCRA, all petitions seeking collateral
relief must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence
becomes final. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa.
2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638, 641 (1998)).
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on September 11,
2000, when the 90 day period for filing for writ of certiorari with the United
-4- J-S06021-17
States Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3); Sup. Ct. R.13.
The instant PCRA was filed on February 10, 2016; sixteen years after the
judgment of sentence became final.
Appellant’s petition is patently untimely, and for the court to have
jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant’s claims he must plead and
prove the applicability of one of the exceptions to the timeliness
requirement. See Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa.
2008) (“It is the Appellant’s burden to allege and prove that one of the
timeliness exceptions applies.”).
There are three statutory exceptions:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Any petition attempting to invoke one of these
exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have
been presented.” 42 PA.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Appellant does not dispute that his petition is untimely; rather,
Appellant acknowledges that he must avail himself of one of the exceptions
-5- J-S06021-17
set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) in order for this Court to have
jurisdiction to reach the merits of his claims. Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1267
(stating PCRA time limitations implicate our jurisdiction and may not be
altered or disregarded to address the merits of the petition). Appellant
asserts that his petition meets the timeliness exception found in 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(1)(ii). Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), Appellant must prove
that (1) this fact was unknown to him and (2) that he could not have
ascertained this fact previously by the exercise of due diligence. Bennett,
930 A.2d at 1270-72. Due diligence requires that the petitioner make
reasonable steps to protect his own interest. Commonwealth v. Carr, 768
A.2d 1164, 1168 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Appellant asserts that he learned of the alleged new facts during an
April 2011 meeting with Detectives Robert Fuss and Francis Higgin.
Appellant then waited five years before filing the instant petition. Thus,
Appellant’s claims are beyond the sixty day timeliness requirement for
asserting a newly discovered fact.
Furthermore, Appellant’s fourth, fifth, and seventh claims were
previously litigated. The petitioner must establish that the claims presented
in the petition were neither previously litigated nor waived.
Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911, 915 (Pa. 2000). “An issue is
waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at
trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction
proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b); Commonwealth v. Hall, 872 A.2d
-6- J-S06021-17
1177, 1181-82 (Pa. 2005). An issue is previously litigated when: “(2) the
highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a
matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue; or (3) it has been raised
and decided in a proceeding collaterally attacking the conviction or
sentence.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2), (3).
In summary, Appellant’s petition was patently untimely, and he has
failed to establish an exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA.
Accordingly, the PCRA court did not have jurisdiction to review the merits of
Appellant’s claims and properly dismissed his petition.
In November 2016, Appellant filed an application for relief, requesting
leave to submit newly discovered facts. Any new facts asserted by Appellant
must be presented in a proper petition for collateral relief.3
Order affirmed. Application for relief denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/24/2017
3 See Commonwealth v. Jones, 815 A.2d 598, 604 (Pa. 2002) (an “appellant does not…have the right to amend his PCRA petition after the lower court has already denied it.”) (internal punctuation modified).
-7-