Appeal from the PCRA Order April 19, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-22-CR-0000759-2002; CP-22-CR-0000993-2002
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J. [*]
Appellant, Melvin Todd Spears, Jr., appeals pro se from the orderdismissing his second petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546, without a hearing, as untimely. We affirm.
On December 9, 2002, Appellant entered guilty pleas, at two dockets, to possession with intent to deliver marijuana (at docket number CP-22-CR-0000759-2002), as well as to criminal homicide, recklessly endangering another person, criminal conspiracy, and firing weapons within city limits (at docket number CP-22-CR-0000993-2002).
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of not less than twenty nor more than forty years' incarceration at a state correctional institution. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. Appellant filed a first PCRA petition, pro se, on December 15, 2003. The PCRA court appointed counsel who, on February 23, 2004, filed a motion to withdraw the petition and to withdraw as counsel, which the PCRA court granted on March 17, 2004.
Appellant filed the instant second PCRA petition on or around May 18, 2012. In this second petition Appellant asserted, inter alia, that a newly recognized constitutional right set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012), presented an exception to the statutory time bar.
On January 17, 2013, the PCRA court filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the second PCRA petition without a hearing. By order dated April 11, 2013, filed April 19, 2013, the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant raises two questions for our review:
I. Did the PCRA court err as a matter of law when it dismissed Petitioner's PCRA petition as untimely filed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) and where said petition was filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented?
II. Was trial counsel ineffective for unlawfully inducing Appellant to plead guilty with the expectation of receiving a sentence of ten to twenty years?
(Appellant's Brief, at 4).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the court's rulings are supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error. This Court treats the findings of the PCRA court with deference if the record supports those findings. It is an appellant's ...