Opinion
J-S50023-17 No. 2246 EDA 2016
12-20-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MARIE BURNSIDE SCOTT Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0411022-1973 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MOULTON, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.:
Marie Burnside Scott appeals from the June 13, 2016 order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing as untimely her petitions filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the following procedural history:
On May 16, 1974, following a jury trial before the Honorable Stanley Kubacki, [] Scott . . . was found guilty of first degree murder[, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502]. On June 27, 1974, [Scott] was sentenced to life imprisonment. [Scott] appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed her conviction on November 14, 1976.2 [Scott] admits in her petition she filed at least three prior post conviction relief petitions.3 All were dismissed.
Opinion, 12/8/16, at 1 ("1925(a) Op.").2 Commonwealth v. Scott , 365 A.2d 853 (Pa. 1976).
3 [Scott] states she filed post conviction petitions on January 3, 1977, February 21, 1978, and May 27, 1981. PCRA Petition, 3/18/16 at p.5. A review of the record verified that [Scott] had at least one prior post conviction proceeding. In 1988, [Scott] filed a petition for collateral relief, the petition was dismissed, and the dismissal affirmed by the Superior Court on May 24, 1988. Commonwealth v. Scott , 545 A.2d 399 (Pa.Super. 1988) (table).
The jury also convicted Scott of burglary, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502, and conspiracy to commit an unlawful act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
On August 23, 2013, Scott filed a PCRA petition. On June 15, 2015 and June 23, 2015, Scott filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus. On March 18, 2016, Scott filed a supplemental PCRA petition. On April 26, 2016, the PCRA Court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petitions without a hearing under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. Scott filed a response to the notice on May 2, 2016 and an additional supplemental petition on May 17, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed the petitions. Scott filed a timely notice of appeal.
The June 13, 2016 order stated that the "petitions filed on August 23, 2013 by [Scott] are dismissed as untimely." Order, 6/12/16 (emphasis deleted). It appears the PCRA court treated all subsequent petitions as supplements to the petition filed on August 23, 2013. --------
Scott raises 12 issues on appeal, making claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness, imposition of an illegal sentence, and trial court error.
Our standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition "is limited to examining whether the PCRA court's determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error." Commonwealth v. Ousley , 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa.Super. 2011).
The PCRA court concluded that: (1) Scott's August 2013 PCRA petition was untimely and she failed to invoke any time-bar exception; (2) Scott's March and May 2016 PCRA petitions were untimely and, because Scott was 19 years old at the time of the murder, she was unable to satisfy the new-constitutional-right time-bar exception based on Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016); and (3) Scott's petitions for habeas corpus should be treated as PCRA petitions because the claims are cognizable under the PCRA, the petitions were untimely under the PCRA, and Scott failed to plead and prove a time-bar exception. 1925(a) Op. at 2-6. After reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant law, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Leon W. Tucker, which we adopt and incorporate herein.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/20/2017
Image materials not available for display.