Com. v. Wheeler, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 11, 2023
• Docket: 338 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S31041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AARON WHEELER : : Appellant : No. 338 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 17, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0117782-1992

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 11, 2023

Aaron Wheeler appeals pro se from the order denying his Post Conviction

Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Wheeler argues

that the court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely. We affirm.

A jury found Wheeler guilty of second-degree murder and other related

crimes in 1993. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. We

affirmed the judgment of sentence, and in 1995, our Supreme Court denied

Wheeler’s petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Wheeler,

645 A.2d 853 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied, Commonwealth v.

Wheeler, 656 A.2d 118 (Table) (Pa. filed March 6, 1995).

Wheeler filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on April 16, 2021, and an

amended PCRA petition on June 25, 2021. He claimed that the trial court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of

its intent to dismiss the petition. See Notice Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of J-S31041-23

Criminal Procedure 907, filed 12/6/22; Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). The court

explained that Wheeler’s petition was untimely and did not satisfy any time-

bar exception. See id. Wheeler filed a response to the court’s Rule 907 notice

but did not address the timeliness of his petition. See Judicial Notice Pursuant

to Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 201; Alternatively, Objection to Notice

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907, filed 12/21/22. The

court dismissed Wheeler’s PCRA petition, and this timely appeal followed.

Wheeler raises the following issue: “Whether [the] court committed

reversible error and abused discretion in dismissing PCRA/Habeas Corpus as

untimely when no case under bill number CP-51-CR-0117782-1992 has even

been filed and brought against [Wheeler] as the absence of entry in official

record shows?” Wheeler’s Br. at III (suggested answer omitted and

unnecessary capitalization removed).

“When reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition, we must determine

whether the PCRA court’s order is supported by the record and free of legal

error.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 181 A.3d 1168, 1174 (Pa.Super. 2018)

(citation omitted).

A PCRA petition must be filed within one year after the judgment of

sentence becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of

sentence “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.” Id. at § 9545(b)(3). When a petitioner files a petition beyond the

-2- J-S31041-23

one-year deadline, the petitioner must plead and prove at least one of the

time-bar exceptions. See id. at § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). These exceptions are:

(i) 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;

(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.

Id. Any petition raising one of the above exceptions “shall be filed within one

year of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at § 9545(b)(2).

A court may not address the merits of an untimely PCRA petition unless the

petitioner has pled and proven at least one of the time-bar exceptions. See

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

The PCRA court properly dismissed Wheeler’s petition as untimely.

Wheeler’s judgment of sentence became final on June 5, 1995, when his time

to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

expired. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13; 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Wheeler, therefore, had

until June 5, 1996, to file a timely PCRA petition. As such, the instant petition

filed in 2021, was facially untimely and the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to

review Wheeler’s claim unless he pleaded and proved one of the time-bar

exceptions. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Here, Wheeler did not

-3- J-S31041-23

attempt to assert any time-bar exception in his PCRA petition. The PCRA court

therefore properly dismissed his petition as untimely.

Order affirmed. Application denied as moot.1

Date: 12/11/2023

____________________________________________

1 Wheeler filed a Motion for Special Relief, asking this Court to hold a hearing

on the authenticity of the criminal complaint. See Motion for Special Relief, filed 8/31/23. We deny the motion as moot.

-4-