J-S45028-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ISABELLA ROSA SOBEJANO : : Appellant : No. 811 MDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002306-2021
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 20, 2024
Appellant, Isabella Rosa Sobejano, appeals from the May 8, 2024 order
entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denying her first
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S
§§ 9541-46, in which she asserted that her plea counsel had been ineffective.
After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On April 19,
2022, Appellant entered a no-contest plea to one count of Aggravated Assault,
a second-degree felony, and one count of Simple Assault, a second-degree
misdemeanor.1 The trial court conducted a thorough on-the record plea
____________________________________________
1 In exchange for Appellant’s plea, the Commonwealth withdrew all other charges, including one count of Aggravated Assault graded as a first-degree felony, and agreed to waive Appellant’s statutory ineligibility for the Restrictive Probation Program. J-S45028-24
colloquy and found that Appellant’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary.
On July 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 12 months of
house arrest with electronic monitoring followed by 18 months of probation.
The court also ordered that Appellant pay her victim restitution, prohibited her
from having contact with him, undergo mental health evaluations, and comply
with recommended treatment. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion
or direct appeal.
At the sentencing hearing, Appellant informed the court that her official
address was 1 Peachwood Drive, Laflin, PA 18702. However, when Appellant
reported to the Luzerne County Adult Probation and Parole office (“Probation
Department”), she informed the Probation Department that she resided in
Philadelphia.2 Once the Commonwealth became aware of this discrepancy, it
filed, on July 20, 2022, a “Motion to Modify Sentence.” In the motion, the
Commonwealth notified the court that Appellant was “not in compliance with
the [c]ourt’s sentence” and had either “lied or misled” it regarding her
address. Motion, 7/20/22, at ¶¶ 13, 14. The motion did not request any
modification of Appellant’s July 7, 2022 judgment of sentence.
On July 25, 2022, following a stipulation by the parties, the trial court
entered an order “modifying” Appellant’s sentence. The order included a home
2 Philadelphia County does not accept supervision of defendants from other
counties of the Commonwealth.
-2- J-S45028-24
address for Appellant in Montgomery County.3 The order stayed
commencement of her term of house arrest for 45 days to allow either for:
(1) the transfer to and commencement of supervision by the Montgomery
County probation department; (2) or, if that did not happen, the
commencement of her 12-month term of house arrest in Luzerne County. The
order also stated that no time spent without an electronic monitor would count
towards the house arrest portion of Appellant’s sentence. The order did not,
however, vacate Appellant’s July 7, 2022 judgment of sentence or change any
of its terms; it merely addressed which county would supervise Appellant’s
probation.
On August 21, 2023, Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition alleging
that her plea counsel had rendered ineffective assistance and induced her to
enter an involuntary no-contest plea.
On April 4, 2024, the Commonwealth filed a brief in opposition to
Appellant’s request for post-conviction relief, asserting that Appellant’s PCRA
petition was untimely because she filed it more than one year after her July
7, 2022 judgment of sentence became final. It acknowledged that it filed a
motion to “modify” Appellant’s sentence, and that the trial court “granted” the
motion, but argued that the order doing so did not vacate the original
judgment of sentence or modify any of its terms; rather, the order merely
3 Montgomery County had agreed to accept the supervision of Appellant under
its House Arrest Program
-3- J-S45028-24
clarified Appellant’s address and stayed commencement of her term of house
arrest for 45 days.
Following a hearing on Appellant’s petition, on May 8, 2024, the PCRA
court dismissed it as meritless, finding that Appellant voluntarily entered her
no-contest plea and that Appellant failed to prove that her “plea was induced
by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” PCRA Ct. Op., 7/25/24, at 12. The PCRA court
also found that Appellant’s petition was timely because it had modified her
judgment of sentence on July 25, 2022, and Appellant had filed her counselled
PCRA petition within one year of her judgment of sentence becoming final.
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:
Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in finding that Appellant’s attorneys did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel and induce her into pleading no contest when they all showed up for trial unprepared and expecting a last minute continuance request to be granted, thereby causing Appellant to plead no contest rather than face the prospect of going to trial in a very serious case with attorneys who were admittedly unprepared and anticipating a continuance.
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
A.
We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the record
supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of
legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This
Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are
-4- J-S45028-24
supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.
Super. 2007). “We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal
conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 167 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super.
2017).
As a preliminary matter, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a
jurisdictional requisite. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa.
2008). Pennsylvania law is clear that no court has jurisdiction to hear an
untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157, 1161
(Pa. 2003). In order to obtain relief under the PCRA, a petition must be filed
within one year from the date the judgment of sentence became final. 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
Here, the trial court sentenced Appellant on July 7, 2022. Appellant did
not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal. The PCRA court opined that
Appellant’s petition was timely because she filed it within one year of its July
25, 2022 order staying the commencement of Appellant’s period of probation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S45028-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ISABELLA ROSA SOBEJANO : : Appellant : No. 811 MDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002306-2021
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 20, 2024
Appellant, Isabella Rosa Sobejano, appeals from the May 8, 2024 order
entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denying her first
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S
§§ 9541-46, in which she asserted that her plea counsel had been ineffective.
After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On April 19,
2022, Appellant entered a no-contest plea to one count of Aggravated Assault,
a second-degree felony, and one count of Simple Assault, a second-degree
misdemeanor.1 The trial court conducted a thorough on-the record plea
____________________________________________
1 In exchange for Appellant’s plea, the Commonwealth withdrew all other charges, including one count of Aggravated Assault graded as a first-degree felony, and agreed to waive Appellant’s statutory ineligibility for the Restrictive Probation Program. J-S45028-24
colloquy and found that Appellant’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary.
On July 7, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 12 months of
house arrest with electronic monitoring followed by 18 months of probation.
The court also ordered that Appellant pay her victim restitution, prohibited her
from having contact with him, undergo mental health evaluations, and comply
with recommended treatment. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion
or direct appeal.
At the sentencing hearing, Appellant informed the court that her official
address was 1 Peachwood Drive, Laflin, PA 18702. However, when Appellant
reported to the Luzerne County Adult Probation and Parole office (“Probation
Department”), she informed the Probation Department that she resided in
Philadelphia.2 Once the Commonwealth became aware of this discrepancy, it
filed, on July 20, 2022, a “Motion to Modify Sentence.” In the motion, the
Commonwealth notified the court that Appellant was “not in compliance with
the [c]ourt’s sentence” and had either “lied or misled” it regarding her
address. Motion, 7/20/22, at ¶¶ 13, 14. The motion did not request any
modification of Appellant’s July 7, 2022 judgment of sentence.
On July 25, 2022, following a stipulation by the parties, the trial court
entered an order “modifying” Appellant’s sentence. The order included a home
2 Philadelphia County does not accept supervision of defendants from other
counties of the Commonwealth.
-2- J-S45028-24
address for Appellant in Montgomery County.3 The order stayed
commencement of her term of house arrest for 45 days to allow either for:
(1) the transfer to and commencement of supervision by the Montgomery
County probation department; (2) or, if that did not happen, the
commencement of her 12-month term of house arrest in Luzerne County. The
order also stated that no time spent without an electronic monitor would count
towards the house arrest portion of Appellant’s sentence. The order did not,
however, vacate Appellant’s July 7, 2022 judgment of sentence or change any
of its terms; it merely addressed which county would supervise Appellant’s
probation.
On August 21, 2023, Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition alleging
that her plea counsel had rendered ineffective assistance and induced her to
enter an involuntary no-contest plea.
On April 4, 2024, the Commonwealth filed a brief in opposition to
Appellant’s request for post-conviction relief, asserting that Appellant’s PCRA
petition was untimely because she filed it more than one year after her July
7, 2022 judgment of sentence became final. It acknowledged that it filed a
motion to “modify” Appellant’s sentence, and that the trial court “granted” the
motion, but argued that the order doing so did not vacate the original
judgment of sentence or modify any of its terms; rather, the order merely
3 Montgomery County had agreed to accept the supervision of Appellant under
its House Arrest Program
-3- J-S45028-24
clarified Appellant’s address and stayed commencement of her term of house
arrest for 45 days.
Following a hearing on Appellant’s petition, on May 8, 2024, the PCRA
court dismissed it as meritless, finding that Appellant voluntarily entered her
no-contest plea and that Appellant failed to prove that her “plea was induced
by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” PCRA Ct. Op., 7/25/24, at 12. The PCRA court
also found that Appellant’s petition was timely because it had modified her
judgment of sentence on July 25, 2022, and Appellant had filed her counselled
PCRA petition within one year of her judgment of sentence becoming final.
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:
Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in finding that Appellant’s attorneys did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel and induce her into pleading no contest when they all showed up for trial unprepared and expecting a last minute continuance request to be granted, thereby causing Appellant to plead no contest rather than face the prospect of going to trial in a very serious case with attorneys who were admittedly unprepared and anticipating a continuance.
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
A.
We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the record
supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of
legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This
Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are
-4- J-S45028-24
supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.
Super. 2007). “We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal
conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 167 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super.
2017).
As a preliminary matter, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a
jurisdictional requisite. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa.
2008). Pennsylvania law is clear that no court has jurisdiction to hear an
untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157, 1161
(Pa. 2003). In order to obtain relief under the PCRA, a petition must be filed
within one year from the date the judgment of sentence became final. 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
Here, the trial court sentenced Appellant on July 7, 2022. Appellant did
not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal. The PCRA court opined that
Appellant’s petition was timely because she filed it within one year of its July
25, 2022 order staying the commencement of Appellant’s period of probation
and correcting Appellant’s address. We disagree.
It is clear from our review of the record that the trial court did not vacate
Appellant’s July 7, 2022 judgment of sentence and replace it with a new
sentencing order containing the full terms of Appellant’s sentence. Instead,
the July 7, 2022 judgment of sentence remained in effect, even after entry of
the court’s July 25, 2022 order, which merely addressed which county would
supervise her probation.
-5- J-S45028-24
We conclude that Appellant’s judgment of sentence, thus, became final
on August 8, 2022.4 See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3).
Appellant’s PCRA petition, filed more than one year later, on August 21, 2023,
is untimely.5
Because Appellant’s PCRA petition was untimely, we are without
jurisdiction to review it. We, therefore, affirm, the PCRA court’s order
dismissing the petition.6
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 12/20/2024
4 August 6, 2022, the 30th day after entry of Appellant’s judgment of sentence,
fell on a Saturday.
5 Although the PCRA sets forth three exceptions to its one-year jurisdictional
time bar, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b), Appellant did not plead or prove the applicability of any of them.
6We may affirm the PCRA court on any basis supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Smith, 194 A.3d 126, 132 (Pa. Super. 2018).
-6-