Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0268-1999 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : LOUIS GREENLEY : CP-21-CR-0268-1999 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., May 25, 2007:-- July 21, 1999, On a jury convicted Louis Greenley of robbery, aggravated assault, two counts of simple assault, and theft. Prior to trial he pled guilty to unlawful October 19, 1999 possession and use of a firearm. On , defendant was sentenced for robbery to costs, $60 restitution, and imprisonment in a state correctional institution for not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years, to date from January 25, 1999. This sentence was imposed pursuant to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 42 1 Pa.C.S. Section 9714(a)(2). Defendant was sentenced for aggravated assault to costs and imprisonment in a state correctional institution for not less than 25 years nor more __________ 1 Section 9714(a)(2) of the Sentencing Code provides: (2) Where the person had at the time of the commission of the current offense previously been convicted of two or more such crimes of violence arising from separate criminal transactions, the person shall be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least 25 years of total confinement, notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary. Proof that the offender received notice of or otherwise knew or should have known of the penalties under this paragraph shall not be required. Upon conviction for a third or subsequent crime of violence the court may, if it determines that 25 years of total confinement is insufficient to protect the public safety, sentence the offender to life imprisonment CP-21-CR-0268-1999 than 50 years, to date from January 25, 1999, to run concurrent with the sentence for robbery. This too was a mandatory minimum sentence under Section 9714(a)(2). Defendant was sentenced for unlawful possession and use of a firearm to costs and imprisonment in a state correctional institution for not less than 5 years nor more than 10 years, to date from January 25, 1999, to run concurrent with the robbery and aggravated assault sentences. For the simple assaults, defendant was sentenced to 2 pay the costs of prosecution. Greenley filed a direct appeal from the judgments of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. He challenged the constitutionality of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9714(d), and the sufficiency of proof offered to establish his prior convictions. On August 7, 2000 3 March , the Superior Court affirmed the judgments of sentence. On 22, 2001 , a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was 4 April 26, 2001 denied. On , a petition for reconsideration was denied by the Supreme Court. January 12, 2007 On , Greenley filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. May 3, 2007 Counsel was appointed. On , the petition was dismissed without a May 15, 2007 hearing. On , petitioner filed a direct appeal from the order of dismissal to without parole. 2 No sentence was imposed on the theft count that merged with the count of robbery. 3 764 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2000). 4 771 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 2001). -2- CP-21-CR-0268-1999 the Superior Court. This court has no jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief based on the period of et seq. limitations set forth in the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9541 The Actprovides in Section 9545(b): Any petition under this subchapter, (1) including a second or shall be filed within one year of the date the subsequent petition, judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: the failure to raise the claim previously was the result (i) of interference by government officialswith the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; the facts upon which the claim is predicated were (ii) unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence ;or the right asserted is a constitutional right that was (iii) recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. (2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. (3) For purposes of this subchapter, a judgment becomes 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 the review. (Emphasis added.) May 26, 2001 Petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final on , which was thirty days after the order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania of April 26, 2001 denying his application for reconsideration of the order denying the allowance of appeal. His petition for post-conviction relief was filed over five and a half years later -3- CP-21-CR-0268-1999 January 12, 2007 on . Because the period of limitations in Section 9545(b) is jurisdictional in nature, we have no jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief because none of the exceptions to the one year time-bar in Section 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii) apply to him. Commonwealth v. Pursell, See 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000). Therefore, the order 5 dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief was properly entered. (Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michelle Sibert, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Louis Greenley, EB 2922, Pro se SCI Somerset 1600 Walters Mill Road Somerset, PA 15510 :sal __________ 5 We note that the issue raised in the petition for post-conviction relief is a challenge to the imposition of the mandatory sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9714. A challenge to that sentence was previously litigated; therefore, petitioner is not eligible for relief pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9543(a)(3). -4-