Com. v. Caldwell, C. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S54024-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CLAY CALDWELL Appellant No. 3603 EDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA Order November 24, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0202251-2000 CP-51-CR-1107861-1999 BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 14, 2015 Appellant, Clay Caldwell, appeals pro se from the order dismissing his fourth petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act as untimely. After reviewing Caldwell’s filings and briefs, we conclude that he failed to successfully plead an exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar. As a result, we affirm.1 Caldwell pled guilty to first-degree murder and simple assault on December 19, 2000, and did not file a direct appeal. In 2010, this Court ____________________________________________ * 1 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. In light of our conclusion that the PCRA court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Caldwell’s petition, we deny Caldwell’s motion to strike the Commonwealth’s brief. J-S54024-15 affirmed the dismissal of Caldwell’s third PCRA petition, filed May 26, 2009, as untimely. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 940 EDA 2010 (unpublished judgment order filed December 22, 2010). Given this history, it is clear that Caldwell’s instant petition, filed September 17, 2013, is also facially untimely. Once again, Caldwell’s petition failed to plead any exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar. In a “memorandum of law,” attached to his petition, Caldwell briefly summarizes case law concerning abandonment by counsel. See Memorandum of Law in Support of the Defendants [sic] PCRA petition, 9/15/13, at 1. However, Caldwell failed to apply the cited law to the facts of his case in any manner. Even assuming that the memorandum of law attached to his petition functioned as a pleading, Caldwell has not satisfied the requirements for successfully pleading abandonment by counsel as an exception to the time bar. See Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super. 2007); Commonwealth v. Williamson, 21 A.3d 236, 242 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011). Therefore, the PCRA court correctly concluded that Caldwell’s petition was untimely and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Order affirmed. Petition to Strike Appellee’s Brief denied. Motion to file supplemental brief denied. Jurisdiction relinquished. -2- J-S54024-15 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/14/2015 -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.
