Appeal from the PCRA Order August 20, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-0205431-2002
BEFORE: LAZARUS, OLSON, and FITZGERALD, [*] JJ.
Pro se Appellant, James Jones, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition as untimely. We affirm. We also deny Appellant's "Motion to Dismissed [sic] Any Petition Filed by District Attorney."
We state the facts as set forth by a prior panel of this Court:
On July 26, 2002, Appellant was convicted of robbery, burglary, criminal trespass, theft, receiving stolen property, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal mischief. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant's robbery and burglary convictions constituted "third strikes" for purposes of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a)(2), which requires mandatory minimum sentences be imposed on repeat criminal offenders. Pursuant to the statute, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two concurrent terms of twenty-five to fifty years' imprisonment for the robbery and burglary convictions. No further penalties were imposed on the other convictions.
On December 16, 2003, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, rejecting Appellant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. On June 29, 2004, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
On April 5, 2005, Appellant filed a timely pro se [PCRA] petition challenging, inter alia, the legality of his sentence. Pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc), Appellant's appointed counsel filed a "no merit" letter seeking permission to withdraw from his representation of Appellant. The PCRA Court granted permission to withdraw and dismissed Appellant's petition as frivolous on April 17, 2006.
Appellant appealed the PCRA Court's ruling to this Court. On July 30, 2007, this Court concluded that Appellant had received an illegal sentence. Relying on Commonwealth v. McClintic, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006), this Court found that because the robbery and burglary convictions arose out of the same criminal transaction, Appellant should have received the mandatory § 9714 increased sentence for only one of the two convictions, not both. Accordingly, this Court reversed the PCRA Court's order and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
At a new sentencing hearing held on October 24, 2007, the sentencing court imposed the enhanced sentence for the robbery conviction only, and imposed a concurrent sentence of nine to eighteen years' incarceration for the burglary conviction. The court did not impose any penalties for the other convictions.
Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 2875 EDA 2007 (unpublished memorandum at 1–3) (Pa. Super. filed Apr. 1, 2009) (footnote omitted).
Appellant challenged his sentence, and on April 1, 2009, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence and granted appointed counsel's petition to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). On September 28, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal.
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on October 28, 2009. The PCRA court dismissed the petition and granted appointed counsel's petition to withdraw pursuant to Finley. On appeal, this Court held that the petition "relate[d] to a judgment of sentence which, for purposes of Appellant's conviction, became final in 2004." Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 1634 EDA 2010 (unpublished memorandum at 1) (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 4, 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Dehart, 730 ...