J-S18015-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 2944 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0316801-1989
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 2948 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0800011-1990
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 2951 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0820411-1990 J-S18015-23
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
Gregory Thomas appeals, pro se, from the order dismissing his serial
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court found that Thomas’s petition was untimely and
failed to meet one of the enumerated exceptions to timeliness provided by the
PCRA. After careful review, we affirm.
In 1991, Thomas was found guilty of two counts of murder and related
offenses. See Commonwealth v. Gregory, 1601 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. filed
August 8, 2014) (unpublished memorandum). Thomas was sentenced to two
concurrent life sentences on the murder charges. See id. at ¶ 3.
Thomas filed the instant PCRA petition, his seventh, on February 1,
2018. See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, 2/1/18. The pro se
petition presented various news articles regarding payment for court
appointed attorneys, seemingly making an argument that counsel was per se
ineffective due to being underpaid. See id. The petition claimed that it met
the governmental interference and newly discovered fact exceptions to the
PCRA’s time-bar. See id. In a later amendment, Thomas referred broadly to
claims of corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department and District
Attorney’s Office and attached a brief filed by the Philadelphia District
Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit in an unrelated case. See Motion
for Leave to File an Amendment, 9/9/20. ____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
-2- J-S18015-23
Thomas’s PCRA petition was dismissed on November 2, 2022. Thomas
filed a notice of appeal to this Court which listed his three lower court docket
numbers. See Notice of Appeal, 11/14/22. This Court’s docket reflects three
copies of the notice of appeal, each one with a checkmark next to one of the
three lower court docket numbers. See Notices of Appeal-IFP Pending,
12/9/22. When appealing to this Court, an appellant must file separate notices
of appeal for each docket when one order resolves issues on multiple lower
court dockets. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa.
2018). This Court will accept notices of appeal that list multiple docket
numbers when the appropriate number of appeals have been filed, especially
if each notice somehow highlights an individual docket. See Commonwealth
v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). Accordingly,
this Court accepted Thomas’s notices of appeal and consolidated them sua
sponte. See Order, 1/23/23.
When we review an order dismissing a PCRA petition we determine
whether the decision is supported by the record and free of legal error. See
Commonwealth v. Jarosz, 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa. Super. 2016). Here, the
PCRA court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider Thomas’s petition
because the petition was untimely and failed to prove an exception to the
timeliness provision of the PCRA. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/22, at 1.
A PCRA petition must be filed within the one-year period immediately
following the date on which the judgment of sentence becomes final. See
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). This
-3- J-S18015-23
time-bar implicates our jurisdiction, and we may not ignore it to assess the
merits of a petition. See id. A judgment of sentence becomes final when the
direct review is complete or the time for seeking direct review expires. See
id.
Our review of the record reflects that Thomas’s judgment of sentence
became final in 1993, after the time to file a writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court expired. See Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi, 275 A.3d
986, 995 (Pa. Super. 2022). The instant PCRA petition was filed on February
1, 2018, making it patently untimely. See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral
Relief, 2/1/18.
Nevertheless, a petitioner may overcome the time-bar when they allege
in their petition and prove one of three exceptions. See Hernandez, 79 A.3d
649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). These exceptions include: that the claim was not
raised previously due to interference by government officials; that the
petitioner previously did not know, and could not have known, through due
diligence, the facts of the claim earlier; and that the petitioner is asserting a
right which has been recognized since the judgment of sentence became final
and has been held to apply retroactively. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (b)(1)(i)-
(iii).
Thomas attempts to invoke the government interference exception at
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and the newly discovered fact exception at 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). See Motion for Leave to file an Amendment
Pending, 9/9/20, at 2. Thomas’s arguments combine the two exceptions.
-4- J-S18015-23
Thomas claims that Brady1 material was withheld in his case, amounting to
governmental interference. See id. He then claims that he was made aware
of this governmental interference when the district attorney’s office filed a
brief in an unrelated case and that filing constitutes a newly discovered fact.
See id. Thomas makes no attempt to connect the brief admitting Brady
violations in an unrelated case with his own case other than they were both
prosecuted around the same time and that the deficiencies may have been
institutional. See id. at 3.
A Brady violation may satisfy the governmental interference and newly
discovered fact exceptions to the time-bar. See Commonwealth v.
Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (Pa. 2019). However, the fact or facts that
Thomas claims are newly discovered or were wrongfully withheld by the
government “must bear some logical connection to a plausible claim for relief.”
Commonwealth v. Myers, ___ A.3d ___, 831 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed
July 20, 2023) (citation omitted).
Here, Thomas’s attempt at invoking an exception to the time-bar fails
as he does not plead or prove any facts showing the government interfered in
his case, merely that the Commonwealth conceded interference occurred in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S18015-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 2944 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0316801-1989
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 2948 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0800011-1990
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : GREGORY THOMAS : : Appellant : No. 2951 EDA 2022
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0820411-1990 J-S18015-23
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
Gregory Thomas appeals, pro se, from the order dismissing his serial
petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court found that Thomas’s petition was untimely and
failed to meet one of the enumerated exceptions to timeliness provided by the
PCRA. After careful review, we affirm.
In 1991, Thomas was found guilty of two counts of murder and related
offenses. See Commonwealth v. Gregory, 1601 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. filed
August 8, 2014) (unpublished memorandum). Thomas was sentenced to two
concurrent life sentences on the murder charges. See id. at ¶ 3.
Thomas filed the instant PCRA petition, his seventh, on February 1,
2018. See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, 2/1/18. The pro se
petition presented various news articles regarding payment for court
appointed attorneys, seemingly making an argument that counsel was per se
ineffective due to being underpaid. See id. The petition claimed that it met
the governmental interference and newly discovered fact exceptions to the
PCRA’s time-bar. See id. In a later amendment, Thomas referred broadly to
claims of corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department and District
Attorney’s Office and attached a brief filed by the Philadelphia District
Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit in an unrelated case. See Motion
for Leave to File an Amendment, 9/9/20. ____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
-2- J-S18015-23
Thomas’s PCRA petition was dismissed on November 2, 2022. Thomas
filed a notice of appeal to this Court which listed his three lower court docket
numbers. See Notice of Appeal, 11/14/22. This Court’s docket reflects three
copies of the notice of appeal, each one with a checkmark next to one of the
three lower court docket numbers. See Notices of Appeal-IFP Pending,
12/9/22. When appealing to this Court, an appellant must file separate notices
of appeal for each docket when one order resolves issues on multiple lower
court dockets. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa.
2018). This Court will accept notices of appeal that list multiple docket
numbers when the appropriate number of appeals have been filed, especially
if each notice somehow highlights an individual docket. See Commonwealth
v. Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). Accordingly,
this Court accepted Thomas’s notices of appeal and consolidated them sua
sponte. See Order, 1/23/23.
When we review an order dismissing a PCRA petition we determine
whether the decision is supported by the record and free of legal error. See
Commonwealth v. Jarosz, 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa. Super. 2016). Here, the
PCRA court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider Thomas’s petition
because the petition was untimely and failed to prove an exception to the
timeliness provision of the PCRA. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/22, at 1.
A PCRA petition must be filed within the one-year period immediately
following the date on which the judgment of sentence becomes final. See
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). This
-3- J-S18015-23
time-bar implicates our jurisdiction, and we may not ignore it to assess the
merits of a petition. See id. A judgment of sentence becomes final when the
direct review is complete or the time for seeking direct review expires. See
id.
Our review of the record reflects that Thomas’s judgment of sentence
became final in 1993, after the time to file a writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court expired. See Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi, 275 A.3d
986, 995 (Pa. Super. 2022). The instant PCRA petition was filed on February
1, 2018, making it patently untimely. See Motion for Post Conviction Collateral
Relief, 2/1/18.
Nevertheless, a petitioner may overcome the time-bar when they allege
in their petition and prove one of three exceptions. See Hernandez, 79 A.3d
649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). These exceptions include: that the claim was not
raised previously due to interference by government officials; that the
petitioner previously did not know, and could not have known, through due
diligence, the facts of the claim earlier; and that the petitioner is asserting a
right which has been recognized since the judgment of sentence became final
and has been held to apply retroactively. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (b)(1)(i)-
(iii).
Thomas attempts to invoke the government interference exception at
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and the newly discovered fact exception at 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). See Motion for Leave to file an Amendment
Pending, 9/9/20, at 2. Thomas’s arguments combine the two exceptions.
-4- J-S18015-23
Thomas claims that Brady1 material was withheld in his case, amounting to
governmental interference. See id. He then claims that he was made aware
of this governmental interference when the district attorney’s office filed a
brief in an unrelated case and that filing constitutes a newly discovered fact.
See id. Thomas makes no attempt to connect the brief admitting Brady
violations in an unrelated case with his own case other than they were both
prosecuted around the same time and that the deficiencies may have been
institutional. See id. at 3.
A Brady violation may satisfy the governmental interference and newly
discovered fact exceptions to the time-bar. See Commonwealth v.
Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 28 (Pa. 2019). However, the fact or facts that
Thomas claims are newly discovered or were wrongfully withheld by the
government “must bear some logical connection to a plausible claim for relief.”
Commonwealth v. Myers, ___ A.3d ___, 831 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed
July 20, 2023) (citation omitted).
Here, Thomas’s attempt at invoking an exception to the time-bar fails
as he does not plead or prove any facts showing the government interfered in
his case, merely that the Commonwealth conceded interference occurred in
someone else’s case. Further, Thomas fails to show any connection between
the Commonwealth’s brief in the unrelated case and his claims in the present
matter. As the PCRA court cogently explains, Thomas has:
____________________________________________
1 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
-5- J-S18015-23
failed to explain how an unrelated brief citing prosecutorial misconduct in an unrelated case suggests that the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence in his case. There is no indication [Thomas] was prosecuted and investigated by the same prosecutors and detectives as [in the unrelated case,] nor has he articulated what, precisely, was withheld. The attached brief simply transforms his bald assertions into pure speculation.
PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/2022, at 1-2.
Thomas’s appellate brief does not address any of the deficiencies cited
by the PCRA court. He therefore has not provided any basis for this Court to
conclude the PCRA court erred in finding that he had not successfully pled any
exception to the time-bar.
As Thomas failed to successfully plead the existence of any exception to
the PCRA’s time-bar, the PCRA court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction
over Thomas’s petition. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468
(Pa. Super. 2013).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/2023
-6-