Com. v. Battles, R. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S34040-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RICKY LYNN BATTLES Appellant No. 1914 WDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order December 2, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-20-MD-0000311-2012; CR-508-1977 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and OTT, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2014 Appellant, Ricky Lynn Battles, appeals from the order entered in the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his serial petition filed 1 under the Post Convicti On August 17, 1977, sixteen-year-old Appellant killed the victim. Appellant pled guilty to murder generally and, on February 24, 1978, the court found Appellant guilty of first degree murder. That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on June 20, 1979. See Commonwealth v. Battles, 417 A.2d 779 (Pa.Super. 1979). Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA petition on July 30, 2012, and appointed counsel filed an amended petition ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S34040-14 on September 27, 2012. decision until our After oral argument, the PCRA court stayed its Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Cunningham, ___ Pa. ___, 81 A.3d 1 (2013). Thereafter, the PCRA court dismissed the petition on December 3, 2013. The following day, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied. The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1285, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (2009). A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at the conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The three statutory exceptions to the timeliness provisions in the PCRA allow for very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a petition within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). When asserting the newly created constitutional right exception by that court to apply Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa.Super. -2- J-S34040-14 2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012). 1979. Appellant filed his current petition on July 30, 2012, more than three decades after the judgment became final; thus, the petition is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant attempts to invoke Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), contending his sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and that the PCRA court should have stayed its decision until the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether to hear Cunningham and determine if Miller applies retroactively. Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has ruled Miller does not apply retroactively to judgments of sentence which became final before the filing date of Miller (June 25, 2012), see Cunningham, supra, and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Cunningham. See Cunningham v. Pennsylvania, 2014 WL 797250 (filed June 9, 2014). Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/23/2014 -3-
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.
