Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Verosko

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 25, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
DANIEL VEROSKO Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Order of May 23, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No.: CP-25-CR-0001359-2009

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J.

MEMORANDUM

WECHT, J.

Daniel Verosko appeals the May 23, 2013 order dismissing his "Petition for the Allowance to File an Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc." For the reasons that follow, we treat Verosko's petition as a petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. Because the petition is untimely pursuant to the PCRA, we dismiss Verosko's appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In a prior memorandum in this case, we adopted the PCRA court's summary of the initial procedural history of this case as follows:

On February 26, 2009, [Verosko] was arrested for his participation in a drug conspiracy to deliver heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines in the Erie area. On August 26, 2009, [Verosko] filed a Motion to Suppress. A hearing was held before this [c]ourt on October 1, 2009, and this [c]ourt subsequently denied the motion on October 29, 2009.
On March 17, 2010, following a jury trial before the Honorable Shad Connelly, [Verosko] was found guilty of two counts each of possession with intent to deliver and possession of a controlled substance, and one count each of criminal conspiracy, possession of drug paraphernalia, firearms not to be carried without a license, and persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell o[r] transfer firearms.
On April 27, 2010, the Honorable Shad Connelly sentenced [Verosko] in absentia to an aggregate term of 14 to 28 years of imprisonment. On that date, Judge Connelly ordered a bench warrant for [Verosko's] failure to appear for sentencing. [Verosko] did not file a post-sentence motion or a direct appeal.
On March 21, 2011, a bench warrant for [Verosko] was returned.
On April 15, 2011, [Verosko] filed his pro se PCRA petition. On April 19, 2011, [the PCRA court] appointed PCRA counsel. On September 16, 2011 PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley "no-merit" letter and a Petition For Leave to Withdraw as Counsel. Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

Commonwealth v. Verosko, No. 1877 WDA 2011, slip op. at 1-2 (Pa.Super. June 19, 2012) (citing PCRA Court Opinion ("P.C.O."), 10/17/2011, at 1-2). On October 17, 2011, the PCRA court notified Verosko of its intention to dismiss the PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On November 3, 2011, Verosko filed objections to the notice. On November 7, 2011, the PCRA court dismissed Verosko's PCRA petition and granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel.

On June 19, 2012, a panel of this Court affirmed the PCRA court's order in a unpublished memorandum. Id. at 1, 10. Notably, Verosko raised the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. The panel found the issue to be waived because Verosko did not raise the issue in the first instance before the PCRA court. Rather, the issue was raised for the first time in Verosko's reply brief. Id. at 10.

On April 26, 2013, Verosko filed a "Petition for the Allowance to File an Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc." In his petition, Verosko sought to have his direct appeal rights reinstated nunc pro tunc on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. On May 23, 2013, the PCRA court denied Verosko's petition based upon our June 19, 2012 memorandum affirming the denial of Verosko's PCRA petition. On June 25, 2013, Verosko filed a notice of appeal. On June 26, 2013, the PCRA court, without having ordered Verosko to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.