Com. v. Hadix, L. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S19012-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. LUTHER JOHN HADIX Appellant No. 1802 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order September 13, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003625-1994 CP-36-CR-0003626-1994 CP-36-CR-0003627-1994 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED MAY 13, 2014 Appellant, Luther John Hadix, appeals pro se from the order entered September 13, 2013, by the Honorable Howard F. Knisely, Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, which denied his fifth petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act1 A panel of this Court previously summarized the facts and procedural history of this case as follows: On July 18, 1995, Appellant pled guilty but mentally ill to one count each of rape, statutory rape, corruption of a minor, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated assault, possession of marijuana and two counts each of simple assault, terroristic threats, unlawful restraint, reckless endangerment, ____________________________________________ 1 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9541, et seq. J-S19012-14 and firearm not to be [carried] without a license. On August 25, 1995, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 21 to 60 years. Post-sentence motions were filed and denied. Appellant filed a direct appeal in which he challenged the validity of the guilty plea and the discretionary aspects of sentencing. On September 16, 1996, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Hadix, 686 A.2d 1363 (Pa. Super. 1996)(unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not seek allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. On June 10, 1997, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition pro se. Appointed counsel subsequently filed a no merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988)(en banc), and sought to withdraw as counsel. PCRA appealed, and on April 2, 1998, this Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Hadix, 718 A.2d 341 (Pa. Super. 1998) (unpublished judgment order). On March 17, 1999, the Supreme Court denied Appellan On May 28, 2003, Appellant filed a second PCRA petition pro se. On July 10, 2003, the PCRA court filed a notice to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on the basis the petition was untimely filed and the issues raised were without merit. Appellant was given thirty days to file an amended Appellant filed objections to the notice. On September 26, 2003, the PCRA court entered an order appointing counsel for Appellant solely to determine whether he was entitled to file a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania nunc pro tunc in light of the recent decision in Commonwealth v. Liebel, 573 Pa. 375, 825 A.2d 630 (2003). Thereafter, on October 24, 2003, appointed counsel filed a no-merit letter and a request to withdraw as counsel. Counsel maintained that the petition was untimely filed and lacked merit. On November 6, 2003, the PCRA court filed a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. In response, Appellant filed a pro se objection to the Rule 907 notice. On November 26, 2003, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing the petition as lacking in ourt -2- J-S19012-14 In its 1925(a) opinion filed February 10, 2004, the trial court determined that the petition was untimely filed, and it was without jurisdiction to consider the merits. Commonwealth v. Hadix, 139 MDA 2004, at 1-3 (Pa. Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum) (footnote omitted). petition as untimely filed. Id. pro se PCRA petitions were subsequently denied on the same basis. Commonwealth v. Hadix, 915 A.2d 142 (Pa. Super. 2006) (unpublished memorandum); Commonwealth v. Hadix, 37 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum). Hadix filed his fifth PCRA petition on June 26, 2013. On August 21, 2013, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Hadix filed a response in objection thereto and an amended PCRA petition on September 5, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the PCRA court again dismis timely appeal followed. Hadix raises nine issues for our review. On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining ed by the record and without legal error. Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Edmiston v. Pennsylvania, 134 S. Ct. 639 and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the -3- J-S19012-14 Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). These issues must be neither previously litigated nor waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). a de novo Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). Before we may address the merits of a PCRA petition, we must first both this Court and the PCRA court. Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44, 52 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 50 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012). We may raise issues concerning our appellate jurisdiction sua sponte. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 497 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied clear no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PC Id. The ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA time- collateral review Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d Id. including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for filing the petition, set -4- J-S19012-14 Commonwealth v. Harris, 972 A.2d 1196, 1199-1200 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 982 A.2d 1227 (Pa. 2009). Section 9545 provides, in relevant part, as follows. (b) Time for filing petition. (1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. (2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). -5- J-S19012-14 1996, when the period for filing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expired.2 Hadix had until October 16, 1997, to file his PCRA petition. His instant petition untimely. filed almost seventeen years late is patently Therefore, Hadix must plead and prove one of the three enumerated statutory exceptions to the time-bar. In support of a timeliness argument, Hadix merely repeats claims all arguments this ls. Hadix therefore fails to properly establish any exception to the PCRA jurisdictional time bar. Accordingly, we are prohibited from examining his claims on petition. Order affirmed. ____________________________________________ 2 Pa.R.A.P. 1113 appeal shall be filed with the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court within 30 -6- J-S19012-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/13/2014 -7-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.