Com. v. Baez, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S31044-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JOEL A. BAEZ, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 622 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on February 5, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-1005978-2004 BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 27, 2014 pro se, from the Order denying his Pro Se Motion to Reopen and Vacate Order/ See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. On June 24, 2005, Baez was found guilty of two counts each of corrupt organizations and delivery of a controlled substance, and one count each of possession with the intent to deliver and criminal conspiracy. The trial court sentenced Baez to an aggregate sentence of ten to twenty years in prison, followed by seven years of probation. Pro Se Motion to Reopen and J-S31044-14 Baez filed a timely Notice of Appeal. On appeal Baez raises the following question for our review: Reopen and Vacate Order/Sentence Pursuant to 42 P[a].C.[S.]A. §§ 5504, 5505[;] and whether the court err [sic] in not granting an [sic] hearing regarding the evidence show [sic] by fraud upon the court and the constitutional violation of the [Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth] Amendments [to the Constitution of the United States of America] and the Brady Violation[1] and miscarriage of justice and due process of the law [sic]? Brief for Appellant at 3 (footnote added, capitalization omitted). We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/9/13, at 3; see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, the sole means for obtaining collateral review, and any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a Post Conviction Relief Act petiti 1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). -2- J-S31044-14 no timely direct appeal is filed, the one-year period allowed for the filing of a post-conviction petition commences upon the actual expiration of the time period allowed for seeking direct review. See Commonwealth v. Brown, jurisdictional in nature and a court may 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). 2005, when the thirty-day time period in which to file a direct appeal expired. Baez had until September 12, 2006, to file his PCRA Petition, but untimely 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 Id. § 9545(b)(2); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. Here, Baez has not pled any of the exceptions listed in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § untimely. -3- J-S31044-14 Order affirmed. 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.
