J-S34031-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MONTY WILLIAM JACKSON II : : Appellant : No. 420 WDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-30-CR-0000259-2019
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: November 26, 2024
Appellant, Monty William Jackson, III, appeals from the order entered
in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas on March 8, 2024, dismissing
his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. After review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On January 23,
2020, Appellant was convicted of Persons not to Possess1 by a jury following
his trial for an incident that took place June 7, 2019. Appellant was sentenced
on July 28, 2020 to five to ten years’ incarceration. Appellant timely filed a
post-sentence motion, and he was appointed new counsel. When his new
counsel failed to file a supplemental post-sentence motion, Appellant filed a
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). J-S34031-24
pro se PCRA petition on January 22, 2021, seeking reinstatement of his direct
appeal rights. By order entered February 26, 2021, the court denied
Appellant’s pending post-sentence motion but reinstated his direct appeal
rights. Appellant was appointed new counsel. On May 13, 2022, this Court
affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 279 A.3d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2022).
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 1, 2023 and the
court appointed James R. Jeffries, Esq. as Appellant’s counsel. A PCRA hearing
was held on March 5, 2024. By order dated March 8, 2024, Appellant’s request
for PCRA relief was denied. This appeal follows.
Appellant raises one issue for our review, verbatim:
The Order in question is whether the trial courts failure to confiscate mobile phones from the jury and whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the same is reversible error such that a new trial should be ordered.
Appellant’s Br. at 7.
Before addressing Appellant’s issue on appeal, we must determine
whether his PCRA petition was timely filed and, if not, whether he has satisfied
an exception to the PCRA time bar. Any PCRA petition “shall be filed within a
year of the date judgment becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A
judgment of sentence 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
review.” Id. at 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are
-2- J-S34031-24
jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues
raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht,
994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).
Instantly, Appellant did not seek allocatur to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court or petition the United States Supreme Court for review, and thus his
judgment of sentence became final on August 11, 2022, ninety days after this
Court affirmed on direct appeal.2 For Appellant’s PCRA petition to be timely, it
must have been filed within one year—by August 11, 2023. Consequently,
Appellant’s instant PCRA petition, filed on September 1, 2023, is untimely.
However, Appellant filed various correspondences with the court prior to filing
his instant PCRA petition, and this Court has reviewed the certified record to
determine if any of those correspondences raised claims cognizable under the
PCRA.
On August 9, 2022, Appellant wrote a letter to the clerk of courts asking
for a status update on his “post sentence motions and the direct appeal,
Allowance of Appeal.” Pro Se Letter, 8/9/22. Appellant raised no other claims
in that letter. On February 1, 2023, Appellant wrote a letter to the clerk of
courts which stated that he was “currently preparing to file a PCRA” and
2 The trial court states that Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on
June 13, 2023, Tr. Ct. Op., 3/8/24, at 1, which is thirteen months from the date this Court affirmed on direct appeal. According to our calculation, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on August 11, 2022, ninety days after the date this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
-3- J-S34031-24
requested documents. Pro Se Letter, 2/1/23. The letter raised no claims
cognizable under the PCRA. The clerk of courts indicated that the documents
were sent on February 6, 2023.
Next, Appellant wrote a letter to the trial court judge dated July 7, 2023
and filed August 9, 2023, complaining that his attorney had not sent him any
documents. Pro Se Letter, 7/7/23, at 1. He alleged a complete breakdown in
the communication with his attorney, Timothy Ross, Esq., and asked the court
to order his attorney to send him the requested documents. Id. He stated that
this is the “third attorney that did not do his job and abandon[ed] me.” Id. at
2. He further wrote, “P.S. Could you also appoint me new counsel for my
pending P.C.R.A. appeal due to Mr. Ross’s obvious ineffectiveness and
abandonment?” Id. at 1.
On August 22, 2023, the trial court issued an order acknowledging
receipt of Appellant’s prior correspondence. The trial court attached to the
order copies of each document Appellant sought. The order further denied
Appellant’s request for new counsel “[a]s there is nothing pending before the
[c]ourt.” Order, 8/22/23. Thus, the court did not construe Appellant’s letter
as a PCRA petition and advised Appellant that he had no matters pending.
Appellant’s next filing was his PCRA petition, dated September 1, 2023 and
filed September 13, 2023. Therefore, the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to
entertain Appellant’s request for PCRA relief.
-4- J-S34031-24
However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition if the
petitioner can explicitly plead and prove one of the three exceptions set forth
at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Those three exceptions are as follows:
(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 the Constitution 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.
Id. Any petition invoking one of these exceptions “shall be filed within
one year of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at §
9545(b)(2). “The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of proving the applicability
of one of the exceptions.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S34031-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MONTY WILLIAM JACKSON II : : Appellant : No. 420 WDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-30-CR-0000259-2019
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: November 26, 2024
Appellant, Monty William Jackson, III, appeals from the order entered
in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas on March 8, 2024, dismissing
his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. After review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On January 23,
2020, Appellant was convicted of Persons not to Possess1 by a jury following
his trial for an incident that took place June 7, 2019. Appellant was sentenced
on July 28, 2020 to five to ten years’ incarceration. Appellant timely filed a
post-sentence motion, and he was appointed new counsel. When his new
counsel failed to file a supplemental post-sentence motion, Appellant filed a
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1). J-S34031-24
pro se PCRA petition on January 22, 2021, seeking reinstatement of his direct
appeal rights. By order entered February 26, 2021, the court denied
Appellant’s pending post-sentence motion but reinstated his direct appeal
rights. Appellant was appointed new counsel. On May 13, 2022, this Court
affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on direct appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 279 A.3d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2022).
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 1, 2023 and the
court appointed James R. Jeffries, Esq. as Appellant’s counsel. A PCRA hearing
was held on March 5, 2024. By order dated March 8, 2024, Appellant’s request
for PCRA relief was denied. This appeal follows.
Appellant raises one issue for our review, verbatim:
The Order in question is whether the trial courts failure to confiscate mobile phones from the jury and whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the same is reversible error such that a new trial should be ordered.
Appellant’s Br. at 7.
Before addressing Appellant’s issue on appeal, we must determine
whether his PCRA petition was timely filed and, if not, whether he has satisfied
an exception to the PCRA time bar. Any PCRA petition “shall be filed within a
year of the date judgment becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A
judgment of sentence 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
review.” Id. at 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are
-2- J-S34031-24
jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues
raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht,
994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).
Instantly, Appellant did not seek allocatur to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court or petition the United States Supreme Court for review, and thus his
judgment of sentence became final on August 11, 2022, ninety days after this
Court affirmed on direct appeal.2 For Appellant’s PCRA petition to be timely, it
must have been filed within one year—by August 11, 2023. Consequently,
Appellant’s instant PCRA petition, filed on September 1, 2023, is untimely.
However, Appellant filed various correspondences with the court prior to filing
his instant PCRA petition, and this Court has reviewed the certified record to
determine if any of those correspondences raised claims cognizable under the
PCRA.
On August 9, 2022, Appellant wrote a letter to the clerk of courts asking
for a status update on his “post sentence motions and the direct appeal,
Allowance of Appeal.” Pro Se Letter, 8/9/22. Appellant raised no other claims
in that letter. On February 1, 2023, Appellant wrote a letter to the clerk of
courts which stated that he was “currently preparing to file a PCRA” and
2 The trial court states that Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on
June 13, 2023, Tr. Ct. Op., 3/8/24, at 1, which is thirteen months from the date this Court affirmed on direct appeal. According to our calculation, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on August 11, 2022, ninety days after the date this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
-3- J-S34031-24
requested documents. Pro Se Letter, 2/1/23. The letter raised no claims
cognizable under the PCRA. The clerk of courts indicated that the documents
were sent on February 6, 2023.
Next, Appellant wrote a letter to the trial court judge dated July 7, 2023
and filed August 9, 2023, complaining that his attorney had not sent him any
documents. Pro Se Letter, 7/7/23, at 1. He alleged a complete breakdown in
the communication with his attorney, Timothy Ross, Esq., and asked the court
to order his attorney to send him the requested documents. Id. He stated that
this is the “third attorney that did not do his job and abandon[ed] me.” Id. at
2. He further wrote, “P.S. Could you also appoint me new counsel for my
pending P.C.R.A. appeal due to Mr. Ross’s obvious ineffectiveness and
abandonment?” Id. at 1.
On August 22, 2023, the trial court issued an order acknowledging
receipt of Appellant’s prior correspondence. The trial court attached to the
order copies of each document Appellant sought. The order further denied
Appellant’s request for new counsel “[a]s there is nothing pending before the
[c]ourt.” Order, 8/22/23. Thus, the court did not construe Appellant’s letter
as a PCRA petition and advised Appellant that he had no matters pending.
Appellant’s next filing was his PCRA petition, dated September 1, 2023 and
filed September 13, 2023. Therefore, the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to
entertain Appellant’s request for PCRA relief.
-4- J-S34031-24
However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition if the
petitioner can explicitly plead and prove one of the three exceptions set forth
at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Those three exceptions are as follows:
(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 the Constitution 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.
Id. Any petition invoking one of these exceptions “shall be filed within
one year of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at §
9545(b)(2). “The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of proving the applicability
of one of the exceptions.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa.
2017).
Here, Appellant did not invoke any of the above exceptions or attempt
to plead or prove them in his brief. In his PCRA petition, he checked the boxes
alleging that he could prove each exception. Regarding the government
interference exception, Appellant attached exhibits to his petition attempting
to show that the Department of Corrections confiscated a correspondence
from his previous counsel, Timothy Ross. The confiscation slip is dated
September 6, 2022. Appellant has not demonstrated that the confiscation of
-5- J-S34031-24
that correspondence prevented him from filing a PCRA petition by August 11,
2023.
Regarding the newly-discovered evidence exception and newly-
recognized constitutional right exception, Appellant states the following:
Jury mislead by its instructions of the said Judge jury instructions after me a pro se filer found evidence of transcripts and other evidence for a new trial under new evidence.
PCRA Petition, 9/1/23, at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Appellant makes various other assertions in his petition such as a weight
of the evidence claim, that “hearsay laws violat[ed] my constitutional rights,”
and that he had “ineffective counsel at every stage.” Id. at 4. None of the
claims in Appellant’s PCRA petition are sufficient to prove any of the PCRA
timeliness exceptions, and he abandons most of these claims in his brief. As
stated above, Appellant’s brief instantly before this court does not even
mention the timeliness exceptions. Appellant’s sole argument in his brief sets
forth a policy position regarding the ability of jurors to access their cellphones
during deliberation.
Based on the foregoing, Appellant has failed to plead and prove an
exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. Accordingly, the PCRA court and this Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain Appellant’s claim. Therefore, we affirm the
order of the PCRA court.
Order affirmed.
-6- J-S34031-24
DATE: 11/26/2024
-7-