Com. v. Scott, M. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S36008-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL A. SCOTT Appellant No. 2325 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order July 19, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0417841-1977 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 17, 2014 Appellant, Michael A. Scott, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his second ), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On July 18, 1977, a jury found Appellant guilty of first- degree murder and possessing instruments of crime. The court sentenced Appellant on February 14, 1978, to life imprisonment. On October 5, 1979, this Court affirme v. Scott, 411 A.2d 1222 (Pa.Super. 1979). See Commonwealth Our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on March 19, 1980. On June 11, 1990, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition; the court subsequently appointed counsel, who filed an _____________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36008-14 1999. On May 11, 2012, Appellant filed his second and current PCRA petition. The court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on May 3, 2013; Appellant did not respond. 19, 2013. On July 25, 2013, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. No Rule 1925(b) statement was ordered, and Appellant filed none. The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013). 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 which the late filing of a petition will be excused; and a petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a petition within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (b)(2). upon expiration of the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.1 Appellant filed the current petition on May 11, 2012, more than thirty years after his judgment of sentence became ____________________________________________ 1 See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 22 (effective July 1, 1970, until amended June 30, 1980, at U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 20; allowing 90 days to file petition for writ of certiorari). -2- J-S36008-14 final, which is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant Lafler v. Cooper, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012) set forth newly recognized constitutional rights, held to apply retroactively. Nevertheless, this Court has specifically held that neither Lafler nor Frye created a new constitutional right. See Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270 (Pa.Super. 2013) (explaining Lafler and Frye simply applied Sixth Amendment right to counsel and ineffectiveness test to circumstances Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/17/2014 -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.
