Com. v. Johnson, R. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S09022-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RODNEY JERMAINE JOHNSON Appellant No. 675 MDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order March 30, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006484-2008 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2016 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, dismissing Rodney Johnson’s petition for a new trial as an untimely petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 (“PCRA”). Johnson filed a petition for a new trial on March 20, 2015, claiming the existence of newly discovered evidence, a claim which is cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi). Because claims that are cognizable under the PCRA are to be pursued within the parameters of that statute, see Commonwealth v. Concordia, 97 A.3d 366, 372 (Pa. Super. 2014), the trial court properly treated Johnson’s filing as a PCRA petition. A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment of sentence J-S09022-16 becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); see also Commonwealth v. Bretz, 830 A.2d 1273, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2003). A judgment is deemed final “at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also Commonwealth v. Pollard, 911 A.2d 1005, 1007 (Pa. Super. 2006). Here, Johnson’s judgment of sentence became final on May 30, 2011, upon the expiration of the ninety-day period for filing a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. Thus, he had one year from that date, or until May 30, 2012, to file a timely PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). Johnson did not file the instant petition until March 20, 2015, nearly four years after his judgment of sentence became final. Accordingly, the PCRA court had no jurisdiction to entertain Johnson’s petition unless he pleaded and offered to prove one of the three statutory exceptions to the time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). In his petition, Johnson attempted to invoke the timeliness exception relating to after-discovered evidence under section 9545(b)(1)(ii), claiming that he “just received” a forensic report “which would have change[d] the jury verdict.” Petition for New Trial, 3/20/15, at ¶ 3. However, this report was, in fact, entered into evidence at trial as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 30. See N.T. Trial, 5/12/09, at 184-86, 221. Accordingly, the facts contained in -2- J-S09022-16 the report were known to Johnson at the time of trial and cannot be used to invoke the exception to the time bar under section 9545(b)(1)(ii). Thus, the PCRA court properly dismissed his petition. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/10/2016 -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.
