Opinion
J-S75043-16 No. 805 EDA 2016
12-05-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHARLES MOBLEY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order February 11, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0014476-2008 BEFORE: BOWES, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Charles Mobley ("Mobley") appeals, pro se, from the Order dismissing his first Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
See Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the puropse of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 2/11/16, at 1-3. On February 11, 2016, the PCRA court entered an Order dismissing the Petition. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Mobley raises the following issue for our review: "[w]hether the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction of [Mobley] on the charges of third[-]degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime, beyond a reasonable doubt?" Brief for Appellant at 4.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), "[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby." Accordingly, to the extent that Mobley has attempted to raise other issues in the Argument section of his brief, which were not stated in his Statement of Questions Presented, we are precluded from addressing them.
We first must determine whether Mobley's claim is cognizable under the PCRA. The PCRA specifically permits challenges asserting (1) constitutional violations; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) an unlawful inducement of a guilty plea; (4) obstruction of a defendant's right to an appeal; (5) newly discovered exculpatory evidence that was not available at the time of the trial; (6) an imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum; and (7) a lack of jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). Notably, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not included in this exhaustive list. Moreover, this Court has consistently held that challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Price , 876 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2005) (rejecting a sufficiency claim that was raised on PCRA appeal without an ineffective assistance of counsel analysis because it is not cognizable under the PCRA); see also Commonwealth v. Bell , 706 A.2d 855, 861 (Pa. Super. 1998) (holding that sufficiency claims are not cognizable under the PCRA). Because Mobley raises only a sufficiency challenge, which is not cognizable under the PCRA, we cannot grant him relief on this issue.
Moreover, the sole issue that Mobley presents for our review is the same issue that he raised on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Mobley , 26 A.3d 1203 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum). On direct appeal, this Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Mobley's convictions. See id. (unpublished memorandum at 2). Because the sole issue raised by Mobley has been previously litigated, it is not cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3) (providing that a petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegation of error has not been previously litigated); see also Commonwealth v. Spotz , 18 A.3d 244, 281 (Pa. 2011) (recognizing that a claim that has been previously litigated is not cognizable under the PCRA). Thus, for this additional reason, we cannot grant Mobley relief on this issue.
We further observe that Mobley's claim on appeal was not raised in either his pro se Petition or in the "no merit" letter submitted by his PCRA counsel pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). Mobley failed to seek the PCRA court's permission to amend his PCRA Petition to include the claim he now presents on appeal. Thus, even if this claim had been cognizable under the PCRA, we would have concluded that it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Mason , 130 A.3d 601, 627 (Pa. 2015) (ruling that the appellant had waived the claim for failure to raise it in his PCRA petition or in an authorized amended PCRA petition).
For these reasons, we affirm the Order dismissing Mobley's Petition, albeit for different reasons. See Commonwealth v. Doty , 48 A.3d 451, 456 (Pa. Super. 2012) (holding that this Court is not bound by the rationale of the PCRA court and may affirm on any basis).
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/5/2016
Image materials not available for display.