Com. v. Melendez-Bonilla, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S73028-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAYSON MELENDEZ-BONILLA Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1304 MDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 17, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003537-2011 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 15, 2020 Jayson Melendez-Bonilla appeals pro se from the trial court’s order dismissing, as untimely, his second petition filed pursuant to the PostConviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9514-9546. We affirm. Following a jury trial, Melendez-Bonilla was found guilty of four counts each of assault of a law enforcement officer, aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and one count each of criminal attempt to commit homicide, possession of a firearm prohibited, and firearms not to be carried without a license. The charges arose as a result of Melendez-Bonilla firing four shots from a .32 caliber revolver at Reading police officers in June 2011. Melendez-Bonilla was sentenced on February 2, 2012, to an aggregate term of 80 to 160 years’ incarceration. On March 21, 2013, our Court affirmed Melendez-Bonilla’s judgment of sentence. On J-S73028-19 November 7, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied MelendezBonilla’s petition for allowance of appeal. On January 31, 2014, Melendez-Bonilla filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed Commonwealth v. and Finley, filed 550 a A.2d no-merit 213 (Pa. letter pursuant Super. 1988) to and Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988). Melendez-Bonilla filed an amendment and addendum to his petition on May 20, 2015. The court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw and, on May 29, 2015, denied Melendez-Bonilla’s PCRA petition. Melendez-Bonilla filed a collateral appeal and our Court affirmed the dismissal of his petition. On June 20, 2019, Melendez-Bonilla filed the instant PCRA petition, his second. On May 22, 2019, the trial court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss MelendezBonilla’s petition; Melendez-Bonilla responded to the notice, raising substantially the same issues raised in his petition. On July 16, 2019, the trial court dismissed the petition. Melendez-Bonilla filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. On appeal, Melendez-Bonilla argues that the trial court improperly dismissed his PCRA petition where the court “failed to recognize FRAUD ON THE COURT, which is an issue raised in [his] PCRA [petition] and ([t]he exceptions to the timeliness requirement), (i), (ii), and (iii).” Appellant’s Brief, at 6. Melendez-Bonilla also references the recent 2018 amendment to 42 -2- J-S73028-19 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)1 (amended on October 24, 2018, effective in 60 days (Dec. 24, 2018)), that extended the time for filing a petition raising an exception from sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented, to one year. Instantly, Melendez-Bonilla’s judgment of sentence became final on February 7, 2014, when the time expired for him to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (b)(3); Sup. Ct. R. 13. Thus, he had until February 7, 2015, to file a timely PCRA petition. Id. at § 9545(b)(1). The instant petition was not filed June 20, 2019, more than four years later and, thus, is patently untimely. Unless Melendez-Bonilla can plead and prove a section 9545(b)(1) exception to the PCRA time bar, the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider his petition. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 105 A.3d 1234, 1239 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA’s time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature). Despite his legal arguments and reference to section 9545(b)(2)’s amendment, Melendez-Bonilla cannot be saved from the fact that his petition was filed untimely and that he has neither pled nor proven an exception to ____________________________________________ The amendment applies to claims arising on December 24, 2017, or thereafter. See Act 2018, Oct. 24, P.L. 894, No. 146, § 3. 1 -3- J-S73028-19 the PCRA time bar.2 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Melendez-Bonilla’s petition as untimely filed. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 1/15/2020 ____________________________________________ Melendez-Bonilla’s arguments involve the sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness for failing to file a motion in limine to strike a police officer’s testimony from trial. None of these claims would even fall within the ambit of an exception. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A,3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (under PCRA, couching post-conviction issues in terms of ineffectiveness of counsel cannot save untimely filed PCRA petition that does not fall into any exceptions to PCRA's jurisdictional time bar). 2 -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.
