Com. v. LeBar, D. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S31040-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. DAYTON LeBAR, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3282 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered on November 4, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Criminal Division, No. CP-45-CR-0001636-2000 BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 27, 2014 pro se, from the Order denying his LeBar pled guilty to one count each of sexual assault, endangering the welfare of children, and statutory sexual assault on March 6, 2001. On June 13, 2001, the trial court sentenced LeBar to an aggregate sentence of ten to twenty years in prison, followed by compliance with the registration 1 for 25 years. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on March 20, 2002, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on December 20, 2002. See Commonwealth v. LeBar, 799 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2002) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 814 A.2d 676 (Pa. 2002). 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9791-9799. J-S31040-14 2 This Motion was denied on November 4, 2013. LeBar filed a timely Notice of Appeal. On appeal, LeBar raises the following question for our review: Did the lower court commit an error of law and/or an Motion for Relief Pursuant to the Inherent Powers of the Court for lack of jurisdiction where the judgment of June 13, 2001[,] was the result of fraud upon the court? Brief for Appellant at 2 (capitalization omitted). Motion for Relief Pursuant to the petition as he claims in his Motion that his sentence was illegal. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 803 A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2002) [t]he PCRA provides the sole means for obtaining collateral review, and any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vii). is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free from legal Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2008) 2 We note that LeBar filed two previous Petitions pursuant to the Post See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541Petitions were denied. -2- J-S31040-14 Id. (citation omitted). the date the judgment becomes final[.] not address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). time required to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States expired. LeBar did not file the instant Petition until October 30, 2013. Thus, mely under the PCRA. However, this Court may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any PCRA petition invoking one of these exceptions Id. § 9545(b)(2); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. Here, LeBar has failed to plead and prove any of the exceptions listed in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), and thus, has failed to overcome the untimeliness of his Petition. Order affirmed. -3- J-S31040-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/27/2014 -4-
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.
