Com. v. Roussaw, R.
This text of Com. v. Roussaw, R. (Com. v. Roussaw, R.) 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-S10038-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : ROUTHA R. ROUSSAW : : Appellant : No. 2157 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 29, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0931421-1989
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and COLINS*, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 22, 2019
Appellant, Routha R. Roussaw, appeals pro se from the order entered in
the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as untimely
his fifth petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On April 24, 1991, a jury convicted Appellant of
first-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy. The court sentenced Appellant
to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, a consecutive term of 10 to 20
years’ imprisonment for the robbery conviction and a consecutive term of 5 to
10 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction. This Court affirmed the
judgment of sentence concerning Appellant’s murder and conspiracy
convictions on November 17, 1992, but vacated and remanded for a new trial
regarding the robbery conviction, due to a flawed jury instruction. Our
Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on June 29, 1993. See
____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S10038-19
Commonwealth v. Roussaw, 620 A.2d 1237 (Pa.Super. 1992), appeal
denied, 535 Pa. 617, 629 A.2d 1379 (1993). Upon remand, the
Commonwealth obtained a nolle prosequi on the robbery charge on September
24, 1993.
Between 1996 and 2015, Appellant unsuccessfully litigated three PCRA
petitions. On May 17, 2017, Appellant filed his fourth PCRA petition. Following
notice per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the court denied relief on August 25, 2017.
Appellant pursued a timely appeal from the denial of his fourth PCRA petition.
While Appellant’s appeal from the denial of his fourth PCRA petition was still
pending, he filed the current pro se fifth PCRA petition on June 6, 2018. The
court issued Rule 907 notice on June 15, 2018; Appellant responded pro se
on June 26, 2018. On June 29, 2018, the court dismissed Appellant’s fifth
petition as untimely. Subsequently, on July 9, 2018, this Court affirmed the
denial of Appellant’s fourth PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v.
Roussaw, 194 A.3d 653 (Pa.Super. 2018).
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 12, 2018, from the denial
of his fifth PCRA petition. No Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was ordered or
filed.
Preliminarily, Pennsylvania law makes clear the trial court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate claims directly related to a subsequent PCRA petition
while an appeal from the denial of the petitioner’s prior PCRA petition in the
same case is still pending on appeal. Commonwealth v. Lark, 560 Pa. 487,
-2- J-S10038-19
493, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (2000). See also Commonwealth v. Montgomery,
181 A.3d 359, 364 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___,
190 A.3d 1134 (2018) (reaffirming that Lark precludes consideration of
subsequent PCRA petition while appeal of prior PCRA petition is still pending).
Instantly, Appellant’s appeal from the denial of his fourth PCRA petition
in this case was still pending when he filed his fifth PCRA petition on June 6,
2018. Under prevailing law, the court had no jurisdiction to address the fifth
PCRA petition before disposition of Appellant’s pending appeal from the denial
of his fourth PCRA petition. See Lark, supra; Montgomery, supra.
Accordingly, the court properly dismissed Appellant’s fifth PCRA petition. See
generally Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en
banc) (explaining this Court can affirm on any valid basis).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/19
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Roussaw, R., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-roussaw-r-pasuperct-2019.