J-A28013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
COREY MAEWEATHER
Appellant No. 1800 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 10, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-2684-1996
BEFORE: BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J. FILED MARCH 03, 2020
Corey Maeweather appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas
of Northampton County (PCRA Court) denying as untimely his “Motion to
Modify Sentence – Nun Pro Tunc” seeking a modification of his sentence. The
motion was filed on March 29, 2019. Maeweather had been sentenced on July
10, 1998, following a guilty plea and degree-of-guilt hearing. The court
sentenced him to life without parole on the charge of first-degree murder, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), with an additional 10 to 20 years’ incarceration on the
charges of kidnapping, 18 P.S. § 2901, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping,
18 P.S. § 903(a)(1).
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A28013-19
Appointed counsel has filed a Turner/Finley1 brief and a petition for
leave to withdraw. We grant counsel’s petition and affirm the PCRA Court’s
order.
Maeweather’s petition falls under the Post-Conviction Relief Act,
because the PCRA is the sole means by which a defendant may obtain
collateral relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (“The action established in this
subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and
encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same
purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus
and coram nobis”). See Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502, 503 (Pa.
Super. 2000) (holding appellant's “motion to correct illegal sentence” must be
treated as PCRA petition); see also Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d
442, 444 (Pa. Super. 2005) (motion for reconsideration or modification of
sentence should be treated as PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Johnson,
803 A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2002) (motion to vacate sentence qualified
as a PCRA petition). Therefore, Maeweather’s “Motion to Modify Sentence –
Nunc Pro Tunc” must be considered a petition for relief under the PCRA. The
fact that Maeweather has attempted to frame his petition as a “Motion to
1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2- J-A28013-19
Modify Sentence” does not change the applicability of the PCRA. See Guthrie,
749 A.2d at 503.
This Court analyzes PCRA appeals in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party at the PCRA level. Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080,
1084 (Pa. Super. 2014). On April 20, 1998, Maeweather entered a negotiated
guilty plea to an open charge of criminal homicide,2 kidnapping and criminal
conspiracy.
Following a degree-of-guilt hearing, the trial court found him guilty of
First Degree Murder for which he was sentenced, on July 10, 1998, to life in
prison without parole. Maeweather was sentenced to an additional 10 to 20
years’ incarceration on the charges of Kidnapping and Conspiracy to
Kidnapping. Maeweather’s sentence was affirmed by the Superior Court on
July 1, 1999.
Maeweather’s first PCRA Petition was filed on October 22, 2002; it was
dismissed by the PCRA Court on March 12, 2003. This Court dismissed his
appeal from that order due to his failure to file a brief.
His second PCRA Petition was filed on August 26, 2004. It was dismissed
on February 11, 2005, and our Court quashed his appeal as being untimely
filed.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
-3- J-A28013-19
The current appeal is from the denial of his motion that was filed on
March 29, 2019. The PCRA Court ruled:
Thus, this instant PCRA Petition is untimely for not being filed within one year from when judgment became final in Defendant’s case and outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, Defendant has not asserted that his Petition falls within the exceptions . . . to the one year limitation, and therefore, we find his claims to be without merit.
PCRA Court, 4-10-19, at 2.
Counsel was appointed by the PCRA Court to represent Maeweather in
the instant case but has moved to withdraw from representation. On April 10,
2019, the PCRA Court filed a Rule 907 notice of its intention to dismiss
Maeweather’s petition without a hearing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Counsel
has filed an appropriate Turner/Finley brief, and has filed a timely petition
to withdraw.
As a preliminary matter, we must address whether counsel has met the
requirements of Turner/Finley, which requires him to conduct an
independent review of the record before a court can authorize his
withdrawal. Appointed PCRA counsel must file a no-merit letter detailing the
nature and extent of his review and list each issue the petitioner wishes to
have examined, explaining why those issues are meritless. See
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 774 (Pa. Super. 2014). Counsel
is required to contemporaneously serve upon his client his no-merit letter and
application to withdraw, along with a statement that if the court granted
counsel’s withdrawal request, the client may proceed either pro se or with a
-4- J-A28013-19
privately retained attorney. See id. We must conduct our own independent
evaluation of the record and agree with counsel that the petition is meritless.
See id.
From our review, we find that counsel has substantially complied with
the requirements of Turner/Finley and their progeny, detailing his review of
the record and his conclusion that Maeweather’s claims lack merit. Counsel
also notified Maeweather and furnished him with a copy of his no merit brief,
and advised him of his right to proceed pro se or to retain private counsel.
Accordingly, we will grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Next, although we would typically proceed to our independent review of
Maeweather’s claims, we must determine the timeliness of Maeweather’s
petition.
“It is well-settled that the PCRA’s time restrictions are jurisdictional in
nature. As such, this statutory time-bar implicates the court’s very power to
adjudicate a controversy and prohibits a court from extending filing periods
except as the statute permits.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178,
185-186 (Pa. 2016) (citations omitted). Under the PCRA, any petition for relief
must be filed within one year of the date on which the judgment of sentence
becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “A judgment becomes final for
purposes of the PCRA at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A28013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
COREY MAEWEATHER
Appellant No. 1800 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 10, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-2684-1996
BEFORE: BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J. FILED MARCH 03, 2020
Corey Maeweather appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas
of Northampton County (PCRA Court) denying as untimely his “Motion to
Modify Sentence – Nun Pro Tunc” seeking a modification of his sentence. The
motion was filed on March 29, 2019. Maeweather had been sentenced on July
10, 1998, following a guilty plea and degree-of-guilt hearing. The court
sentenced him to life without parole on the charge of first-degree murder, 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), with an additional 10 to 20 years’ incarceration on the
charges of kidnapping, 18 P.S. § 2901, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping,
18 P.S. § 903(a)(1).
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A28013-19
Appointed counsel has filed a Turner/Finley1 brief and a petition for
leave to withdraw. We grant counsel’s petition and affirm the PCRA Court’s
order.
Maeweather’s petition falls under the Post-Conviction Relief Act,
because the PCRA is the sole means by which a defendant may obtain
collateral relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (“The action established in this
subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and
encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same
purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus
and coram nobis”). See Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502, 503 (Pa.
Super. 2000) (holding appellant's “motion to correct illegal sentence” must be
treated as PCRA petition); see also Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d
442, 444 (Pa. Super. 2005) (motion for reconsideration or modification of
sentence should be treated as PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Johnson,
803 A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2002) (motion to vacate sentence qualified
as a PCRA petition). Therefore, Maeweather’s “Motion to Modify Sentence –
Nunc Pro Tunc” must be considered a petition for relief under the PCRA. The
fact that Maeweather has attempted to frame his petition as a “Motion to
1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2- J-A28013-19
Modify Sentence” does not change the applicability of the PCRA. See Guthrie,
749 A.2d at 503.
This Court analyzes PCRA appeals in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party at the PCRA level. Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080,
1084 (Pa. Super. 2014). On April 20, 1998, Maeweather entered a negotiated
guilty plea to an open charge of criminal homicide,2 kidnapping and criminal
conspiracy.
Following a degree-of-guilt hearing, the trial court found him guilty of
First Degree Murder for which he was sentenced, on July 10, 1998, to life in
prison without parole. Maeweather was sentenced to an additional 10 to 20
years’ incarceration on the charges of Kidnapping and Conspiracy to
Kidnapping. Maeweather’s sentence was affirmed by the Superior Court on
July 1, 1999.
Maeweather’s first PCRA Petition was filed on October 22, 2002; it was
dismissed by the PCRA Court on March 12, 2003. This Court dismissed his
appeal from that order due to his failure to file a brief.
His second PCRA Petition was filed on August 26, 2004. It was dismissed
on February 11, 2005, and our Court quashed his appeal as being untimely
filed.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
-3- J-A28013-19
The current appeal is from the denial of his motion that was filed on
March 29, 2019. The PCRA Court ruled:
Thus, this instant PCRA Petition is untimely for not being filed within one year from when judgment became final in Defendant’s case and outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, Defendant has not asserted that his Petition falls within the exceptions . . . to the one year limitation, and therefore, we find his claims to be without merit.
PCRA Court, 4-10-19, at 2.
Counsel was appointed by the PCRA Court to represent Maeweather in
the instant case but has moved to withdraw from representation. On April 10,
2019, the PCRA Court filed a Rule 907 notice of its intention to dismiss
Maeweather’s petition without a hearing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Counsel
has filed an appropriate Turner/Finley brief, and has filed a timely petition
to withdraw.
As a preliminary matter, we must address whether counsel has met the
requirements of Turner/Finley, which requires him to conduct an
independent review of the record before a court can authorize his
withdrawal. Appointed PCRA counsel must file a no-merit letter detailing the
nature and extent of his review and list each issue the petitioner wishes to
have examined, explaining why those issues are meritless. See
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 774 (Pa. Super. 2014). Counsel
is required to contemporaneously serve upon his client his no-merit letter and
application to withdraw, along with a statement that if the court granted
counsel’s withdrawal request, the client may proceed either pro se or with a
-4- J-A28013-19
privately retained attorney. See id. We must conduct our own independent
evaluation of the record and agree with counsel that the petition is meritless.
See id.
From our review, we find that counsel has substantially complied with
the requirements of Turner/Finley and their progeny, detailing his review of
the record and his conclusion that Maeweather’s claims lack merit. Counsel
also notified Maeweather and furnished him with a copy of his no merit brief,
and advised him of his right to proceed pro se or to retain private counsel.
Accordingly, we will grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Next, although we would typically proceed to our independent review of
Maeweather’s claims, we must determine the timeliness of Maeweather’s
petition.
“It is well-settled that the PCRA’s time restrictions are jurisdictional in
nature. As such, this statutory time-bar implicates the court’s very power to
adjudicate a controversy and prohibits a court from extending filing periods
except as the statute permits.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178,
185-186 (Pa. 2016) (citations omitted). Under the PCRA, any petition for relief
must be filed within one year of the date on which the judgment of sentence
becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “A judgment becomes final for
purposes of the PCRA 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 the
-5- J-A28013-19
review.” Robinson, 139 A.3d at 185–86 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Here, Maeweather’s judgment of sentence became final in 1999, when
his time to file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expired. See
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Because Maeweather filed the instant motion on
March 28, 2019, it is untimely on its face, and the PCRA court lacked
jurisdiction to review it unless he pleaded and proved one of the statutory
exceptions to the time-bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
The three exceptions that allow for review of an untimely PCRA petition
are limited to: (1) the petitioner’s inability to raise a claim because of
governmental interference; (2) the discovery of previously unknown facts that
would have supported a claim; and (3) a newly recognized constitutional
right. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke
these exceptions “shall be filed within one year of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (b)(2).
If the PCRA petition is determined to be untimely, and no exception has
been pled and proved, the petition must be dismissed “because Pennsylvania
courts are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.”
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 519 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation
omitted).
The motion filed by Maeweather, which is by statute a petition under
the PCRA, is untimely on its face. Maeweather has not attempted to establish
-6- J-A28013-19
a timeliness exception under the PCRA. See Motion, filed 3/29/19, at 1-2.
Therefore, we affirm the PCRA court’s order.
Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 3/3/20
-7-