Com. v. Sipos, D.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 1242 WDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S03025-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : DENNIS WAYNE SIPOS : : Appellant : No. 1242 WDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 22, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-32-CR-0000512-1988

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

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: April 9, 2025

Dennis Wayne Sipos (“Sipos”) appeals pro se, from the order dismissing

as untimely his serial petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

We briefly note that in April 1989, Sipos entered a nolo contedere plea

to third-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to ten to twenty years

in prison to be served consecutively to a sentence he was then serving in Ohio.

Sipos did not file a direct appeal. In the ensuing thirty-five years, he has

filed numerous PCRA petitions, motions, and other filings, most of which claim

his sentence is illegal because he did not receive credit for 174 days served in

jail.

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S03025-25

Sipos filed the instant, serial PCRA petition in 2022, raising his illegal

sentence claim. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who subsequently filed a

motion to withdraw which the court granted. The PCRA court ultimately

dismissed the petition without a hearing, holding it was both untimely and

previously litigated. This appeal followed

On appeal, Sipos raises the following questions for our review.

A. Did court-appointed counsel misconstrue the argument to the court regarding relief sought by [Sipos]?

B. Did the [PCRA] court err by removing jail credit after . . . thirty [] days thereby violating § 5504, judicial extension of time; (a) except as provided by Section 1722(c) (relating to time limitations), the time limited by this chapter shall not be extended by order, rule, or otherwise?

C. Did the removal of jail credit create [sic] [Sipos’s] illegal sentence?

Sipos’s Brief 4 (capitalization regularized, bolding and underlining removed).

Sipos appeals from the denial of his untimely PCRA petition asserting

the illegality of his sentence. 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.

-2- J-S03025-25

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

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).

Sipos’s judgment of sentence became final on May 19, 1989, thirty days

after the court entered the judgment of sentence and Sipos failed to file a

direct appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). 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

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

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

-3- J-S03025-25

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. 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.

Critically, Sipos has not pled or proven an exception to the PCRA’s

timeliness requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). On appeal, he

argues only his sentence is illegal. See Sipos’s Brief at 7-8. The Pennsylvania

Supreme Court has explained: “Although legality of sentence is always subject

to review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits

or one of the exceptions thereto.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214,

223 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). Sipos cannot elude the PCRA’s timeliness

requirements based on an untimely claim of an illegal sentence.2 See id.

Sipos’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.

2 Even if timely, Sipos’s claim would be previously litigated. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sipos, 1865 WDA 2011 (Pa. Super. 7/7/12) (unpublished memorandum at 2-4) (denying Sipos’s claim he was denied 174 days credit and affirming dismissal of his PCRA petition as untimely).

-4- J-S03025-25

DATE: 04/09/2025

-5-