Com. v. Valentin, N.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 7 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S25023-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NEFTALI VALENTIN : : Appellant : No. 7 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 17, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0000957-2006

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 16, 2024

Neftali Valentin appeals pro se from the dismissal of his Post Conviction

Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. He claims that

the court erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm.

In 2007, Valentin pled guilty to two counts of attempted homicide and

one count of arson.1 The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 21 to

42 years’ incarceration. Valentin filed a post-sentence motion that was denied

by operation of law. See Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, filed 3/8/07.

Valentin did not file a direct appeal.

Valentin filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his second, on September

5, 2023, claiming that trial counsel failed to inform him of his appellate rights

and that PCRA counsel failed to present evidence establishing trial counsel’s

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2501(a), and 3301(a)(1)(i), respectively. J-S25023-24

ineffectiveness. See Petition Under Post Conviction Relief Act and for Nunc Pro

Tunc Reinstatement of Appellate Rights, filed 9/5/23, at ¶¶ 15-16. Valentin

claimed the governmental interference time-bar exception. Id. at ¶ 22. He

maintained that the trial court did not rule on his post-sentence motion and

that the clerk of courts failed to notify him when it was denied by operation of

law. See id.

The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without

a hearing pursuant to Rule 907, concluding that the petition was untimely and

that the governmental interference time-bar exception did not apply. Notice

of Intent to Dismiss PCRA Petition Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1), filed

10/27/23, at n.1; Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). It noted that Valentin did not present

“any evidence, or even raised an allegation, that the trial court or the Clerk of

Courts somehow prevented him from raising a claim under the PCRA” and the

court’s failure to enter an order denying his post-sentence motion “did not in

any way affect [Valentin’s] ability to file a PCRA petition.” Id. Valentin

responded to the Rule 907 notice stating that if the court determined relief

was not warranted under the PCRA, the court was required to “re-label” the

PCRA petition as a writ of habeas corpus. See Answer to Court’s Notice of

Intent to Dismiss, filed 11/3/23. The court ultimately dismissed the PCRA

petition as untimely. Order, filed 11/17/23. This timely appeal followed.

Valentin raises the following issue: “Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt abused

its discretion in dismissing [Valentin’s] Post Conviction Petition seeking relief

in the justice where insufficient reason exist[s] to support differential

-2- J-S25023-24

treatment among individuals[?]” Valentin’s Br. at 3 (suggested answer

omitted).

We review the denial of PCRA relief by determining whether the PCRA

court’s conclusions are “supported by the record and free of legal error.”

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation

omitted). “The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no

support for the findings in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Lawson,

90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa.Super. 2014). We defer to the findings of the PCRA court that

are supported by the record and review its legal conclusions de novo. See

Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 603 (Pa. 2013); Commonwealth

v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 140 (Pa.Super. 2002).

We do not address the merits of Valentin’s claim because his PCRA

petition is untimely. “[I]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor

the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we . . .

do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010) (citation

omitted). A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be

filed within one year of the petitioner’s judgment of sentence becoming final.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Beyond that one-year deadline, a petitioner

must plead and prove at least one time-bar exception. These exceptions

include governmental interference in raising the claim, newly discovered facts

that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence, and a newly

recognized constitutional right that has been recognized to apply retroactively.

-3- J-S25023-24

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner must raise a time-bar

exception “within one year of the date the claim could have been presented.”

See id. at § 9545(b)(2).

Here, Valentin’s judgment of sentence became final on August 6, 2007,

30 days after his post-sentence motion was considered denied by operation

of law. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(b), (B)(3)(a); 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Thus,

the instant petition is facially untimely. Valentin therefore had to plead at least

one time-bar exception.

In his petition, Valentin raised the governmental interference exception.

This exception applies when “the failure to raise the claim previously was the

result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the

claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the

Constitution or laws of the United States.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i). “The

proper question with respect to [the government interference] timeliness

exception is whether the government interfered with [the a]ppellant’s ability

to present his claim and whether [the a]ppellant was duly diligent in seeking

the facts on which his claims are based.” Commonwealth v. Chimenti, 218

A.3d 963, 975 (Pa.Super. 2019)

Valentin claims that the clerk of courts and trial court were

governmental actors that interfered with his ability to raise his claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, by failing to notify him of the denial of his

post-sentence motion. However, he did not plead due diligence. As such,

Valentin failed to sufficiently plead the governmental interference exception.

-4- J-S25023-24

Valentin’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Harris, No. 1230 EDA 2021, 2022

WL 3909026, at **1 (Pa.Super. filed Aug. 31, 2022) (unpublished mem.) is

misplaced because the PCRA petition there was timely. The PCRA court

committed no error in dismissing the instant petition as untimely.

Order affirmed.

Date: 10/16/2024

-5-