Com. v. Handy, T.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 3196 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S47009-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TYRONE V. HANDY : : Appellant : No. 3196 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 29, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1135341-1982

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED MARCH 31, 2025

Tyrone V. Handy (“Handy”)1 appeals pro se from the dismissal of his

serial petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 2 We

affirm.

In 1983, a jury found Handy guilty of second-degree murder and

possessing an instrument of crime in a 1979 murder in Philadelphia. He

received a life sentence. This Court denied his direct appeal and the Supreme

Court denied allowance of appeal. He filed a series of PCRA petitions, the

fourth of which this Court denied in December 2012. See Commonwealth

____________________________________________

1 Handy is also known as Sulaiman Taalibdin.

2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-9546. J-S47009-24

v. Taalibdin, 64 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum). 3

This Court affirmed the denial of a subsequent PCRA petition. See

Commonwealth v. Taalibdin, 190 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2018) (unpublished

memorandum).

In December 2022, Handy filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

asserting his judgment of sentence and conviction should be vacated because

he was not charged with robbery and did not have notice robbery was the

underlying felony for the charge of second-degree murder. The PCRA court

treated Handy’s petition as a PCRA petition, held it untimely, stated Handy

previously litigated this claim in his fourth PCRA petition, and alternatively

found the claim meritless. See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/13/24, at 4-6

(unnumbered).

Handy timely appealed and he and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925. On appeal, Handy presents two issues for this Court’s review:

I. Is the PCRA court’s ruling that [Handy’s] filing was untimely contrary to the law?

II. Is the PCRA court’s ruling on the merits of [Handy’s] conviction supported by the record and/or contrary to the law?

Handy’s Brief at iii (capitalization standardized).

3 In his petition, Handy alleged the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him

because the information failed to state he would be tried for the predicate offense of felony murder, and he was not given formal notice of the charges against him. See Commonwealth v. Taalibdin, 63 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum at 2).

-2- J-S47009-24

Handy asserts he was not given notice of a robbery charge to support

his conviction of second-degree murder, the trial court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction, and his conviction and sentence must be vacated. See Handy’s

Brief at 3-7. He also asserts the evidence was insufficient to support his

second-degree murder conviction. See id. at 8-11.

Initially, we conclude the PCRA court was correct to treat Handy’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a serial PCRA petition. “[I]t is well

established that pursuant to Pennsylvania law, the PCRA subsumes the writ of

habeas corpus unless the claim does not fall within the ambit of the PCRA

statute.” Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(citations omitted). Here, Handy’s claim the trial court lacked jurisdiction is

clearly within the ambit of the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(i), (viii).

Thus, the PCRA court properly treated Handy’s filing as a serial PCRA petition.

We review the dismissal of a PCRA petition to determine “whether the

PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its

conclusions of law are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Busanet,

54 A.3d 35, 45 (Pa. 2012). “Our scope of review is limited to the findings of

the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable

to the party who prevailed in the PCRA court proceeding.” Id.

PCRA petitions, including second and subsequent petitions, must be filed

within one year of the date an appellant’s judgment of sentence becomes final.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment becomes final at the

-3- J-S47009-24

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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The

timeliness of a PCRA petition is jurisdictional. If a PCRA petition is untimely,

a court lacks jurisdiction over it. See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d

1120, 1124 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d

118, 121 (Pa. Super. 2014) (courts do not have jurisdiction over an untimely

PCRA petition). “Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal

authority to address the substantive claims [in a PCRA petition].”

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 63 A.3d 1274, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Handy’s judgment of sentence became final on September 12, 1988

(September 11, 1988, was a Sunday), upon the expiration of his time to file

a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. See

former U.S Supreme Court Rule 20 (providing a certiorari petition is timely if

filed within 60 days of the denial of discretionary rule in a state’s highest

court).4 He did not file the instant petition until December 2022. Thus, the

petition is untimely.

A petitioner may overcome the time-bar if he pleads and proves one of

the three statutory exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). See

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa. 2017). The three

4 U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20 was replaced by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13,

effective January 1, 1990.

-4- J-S47009-24

exceptions are: “(1) interference by government officials in the presentation

of the claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized

constitutional right.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa.

Super. 2012); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petition invoking

an exception must be filed within one year of the date the claim could have

been presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). If a petitioner fails to invoke

a valid exception, the court is without jurisdiction to review the petition or

provide relief. See Spotz, 171 A.3d at 676.

Handy did not plead or offer to prove an exception to the PCRA’s

timeliness requirement in his petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). This

Court is therefore without jurisdiction to review the petition or provide relief.

See Spotz, 171 A.3d at 676.5

Handy’s serial PCRA petition is untimely, and like the PCRA court, we

lack jurisdiction and “legal authority to address [any] substantive claims.”

Lewis, 63 A.3d at 1281.

Order affirmed.

5 On appeal, Handy argues the courts prevented him from presenting his jurisdictional challenge by ruling the time-bar deprived the court of jurisdiction. See Handy’s Brief at 7. The claim has no merit. Rulings which enforce Pennsylvania law do not constitute government interference.

-5- J-S47009-24

Date: 3/31/2025

-6-