Com. v. Kushner, A.
This text of Com. v. Kushner, A. (Com. v. Kushner, A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S78001-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALAN KUSHNER, : : Appellant : No. 3875 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0009814-2008
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 17, 2019
Alan Kushner appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, dismissing as untimely his fourth petition filed
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
After our review, we affirm.
On October 30, 2008, Lower Merion Township Police arrested Kushner
and charged him with attempted murder, criminal solicitation to commit
murder, and criminal conspiracy to commit murder in connection with his
attempts to hire another individual to kill his wife. On July 20, 2009, a jury
convicted Kushner of solicitation to commit murder and acquitted him of
attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. On October 23, 2009,
the court sentenced him to 7½ to 20 years of incarceration. On December 8,
2010, this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v.
Kushner, 23 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum). The
____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S78001-18
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review on October 13, 2011. See
Commonwealth v. Kushner, 30 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2011) (Table).
Kushner’s judgment of sentence became final for PCRA purposes on
January 11, 2012.1 Thus, Kushner had until January 11, 2013, to file any and
all PCRA petitions. The instant petition, filed on October 24, 2017, is facially
untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (in order for petition to be timely
under PCRA, petitioner must file petition within one year of date judgment of
sentence becomes final); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d
264, 267 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA’s time requirements are jurisdictional; no court
has jurisdiction to address untimely petition).
However, section 9545(b)(1) provides three exceptions to the general
time requirements of the PCRA. To invoke an exception, a petition must allege
and the petitioner must prove:
(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
____________________________________________
1 A judgment is deemed 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 the time for seeking review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 218 (Pa. 1999) (noting appellant’s judgment of sentence becomes final upon expiration of ninety-day period for seeking appellate review to United States Supreme Court.). See also Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 (allowing ninety days for filing of writ of certiorari in Supreme Court of the United States).
-2- J-S78001-18
(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.A. § 9545(b)(1). A petitioner has the burden of pleading and
proving an exception to the time bar. Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953
A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa. 2008). A petitioner seeking relief pursuant to a
statutory exception must adhere to the additional requirement of filing the
petition within sixty (60) days of the date the claim could have been
presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).2
Here, Kushner attempts to invoke the newly-discovered facts exception,
averring that the June 29, 2017 conviction of former Philadelphia District
Attorney Seth Williams entitles him to relief from his Montgomery County
conviction. Specifically, he argues that the transfer agreement between the
Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office and the Philadelphia County
District Attorney’s Office, executed in 2008, is somehow invalidated by Seth
Williams’ 2017 conviction. Kushner argues that he filed the instant petition
“to litigate the integrity of that decision.” Appellant’s Brief, at 10.
2 Section 9545(b)(2) was amended on October 24, 2018, effective in 60 days (Dec. 24, 2018), extending the time for filing from sixty (60) days of the date the claim could have been presented, to one year. The amendment shall apply to claims arising on December 24, 2017, or thereafter. It is not applicable here. See Act 2018, Oct. 24, P.L. 894, No. 146, § 3.
-3- J-S78001-18
Kushner’s argument is a thinly veiled attempt to relitigate his prior claim
that the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction over
his case because the events leading up to the solicitation occurred in
Philadelphia. Kushner cannot resurrect previous claims by asserting a new
theory under the guise of one of the PCRA timeliness exceptions.
Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 727 (Pa. 2003). This claim
was presented in Kushner’s first PCRA petition, dismissed by the PCRA court,
and affirmed by this Court on collateral appeal. Commonwealth v.
Kushner, 134 A.3d 91 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished memorandum).3 See
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3) (in order to be eligible for PCRA relief, petitioner
must plead and prove by preponderance of evidence that allegation of error ____________________________________________
3 In his appeal from the 2014 order denying his first PCRA petition, Kushner claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a jurisdictional challenge. Specifically, he claims counsel’s failed to raise a jurisdictional challenge to Kushner being tried in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, where the alleged solicitation to commit murder occurred in Philadelphia. The PCRA court determined that the contention was meritless, and this Court affirmed. Since the crime was to be committed in the marital home in Montgomery County, jurisdiction was proper in Montgomery County. See Kushner, 134 A.3d at 91. See also Commonwealth v. Carey, 439 A.2d 151, 155 (Pa. Super. 1981) (even though original act of solicitation occurred in Philadelphia County, ultimate act was to be performed in Delaware County and that county should have jurisdiction to try defendant).
We also note that pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(B), the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office relinquished jurisdiction of the solicitation incidents to the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office. The transfer agreement, executed in 2008, two years before Seth Williams took office, was signed by Chief of Trials, Thomas McGoldrick of the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, and his counterpart in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Deputy District Attorney John P. Delaney, Jr. See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 11/12/13, at 65; Ex. C-19).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Kushner, A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-kushner-a-pasuperct-2019.