Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1038-2003 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-CR-1038-2003 : : CHRISTOPHER REED : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925 In this criminal case, petitioner filed a pro se petition requesting post-conviction relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. (Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Jul. 7, 2011). The instant petition relates to petitioner’s conviction of January 9, 2004, wherein he pled guilty to second degree murder and was thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. (Order of Court, Jan. 9, 2011). On December 6, 2011, this court denied his petition on the basis that it was frivolous. (Order of Court, Dec. 6, 2011). Petitioner now appeals to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. (Concise Statement of Matter Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 1925(B), filed Jan. 17, 2012). The basis for appeal has been expressed in a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal as follows: The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is and was without subject matter jurisdiction. It has been held that a court is duty bound to raise the matter of subject matter jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction over subject- matter itself is fatal when raised at any stage of a proceedings. (Concise Statement of Matter Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 1925(B), filed Jan. 17, 2012). The background of this case may be summarized as follows. On January 14, 2003, petitioner pled guilty to a second degree murder charge that arose out of an incident which occurred at the victim’s residence in Plainfield, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Plea Agreement, filed Jan. 14, 2003). The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County accepted his plea of second degree murder and sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole. (Order of Court, Jan. 9, 2004). Petitioner did not file a direct appeal and the judgment of sentence became final on February 8, 2004. On April 29, 2004, petitioner filed his first PCRA petition. (Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Apr. 29, 2004). His petition was denied on August 6, 2004. (Order of Court, Aug. 6, 2004). The Superior Court affirmed on April 26, 2005. (Memorandum from Superior Court, Apr. 26, 2005). On November 21, 2005, petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the federal district court, which culminated, on April 17, 2007, with the Third Circuit’s denial of his habeas appeal. On January 17, 2008, petitioner filed his second PCRA petition. (Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Jan. 17, 2008). On December 9, 2008, after a hearing, this court dismissed the petition as untimely. (Order of Court, Dec. 9, 2008). Thereafter, the Superior Court affirmed our decision. (Memorandum of Superior Court, Nov. 2, 2009). Petitioner filed the instant PCRA petition with this court on July 7, 2011. (Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief, filed Jul. 7, 2011). We entered an order that denied that petition on the basis that it was frivolous. (Order of Court, Dec. 6, 2011). Petitioner now appeals to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. (Concise Statement of Matter Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 1925(B), filed Jan. 17, 2012). As previously noted, the sole basis upon 2 which petitioner requests relief lies in an assertion that the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas did not possess subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal conviction. The PCRA court may decline to hold a hearing on the petition if the PCRA court determines that a petitioner’s claim is “patently frivolous and is without a trace of support in either the record or from other evidence.” Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011, 1014 (Pa.Super. 2001). For an issue to be frivolous, it must be lacking any basis in law or fact. Amaker v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 576 A.2d 50, 51 (Pa. 1990); Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 562 (Pa. 1990). Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the competency of a court to hear and adjudicate the type of controversy presented. Commonwealth v. Bethea, 574 Pa. 100, 828 A.2d 1066, 1074 (2003). Our Supreme Court has held that the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction are twofold: first, the court must be competent to hear the case, and second, the defendant be presented with a formal and specific accusation of the crimes charged. Commonwealth v. Little, 314 A.2d 270, 275 (Pa. 1974). All Courts of Common Pleas have statewide subject matter jurisdiction in cases arising under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Commonwealth v. Jones, 593 Pa. 295, 929 A.2d 205, 211 (2007). In the present case, the competency of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas to try a charge of second degree murder is clear beyond question. Petitioner pled guilty and was sentenced for an offense that occurred in Plainfield, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the Commonwealth presented petitioner with formal and specific accusations of the crimes charged when it filed a bill of information charging petitioner with second degree murder. Petitioner’s claim that this court was without subject matter jurisdiction to convict him of second 3 degree murder is not supported by evidence in the record or from any other form of evidence whatsoever. Therefore, petitioner’s claim is frivolous. March 20, 2012 ______________________ Kevin A. Hess, P. J. Matthew Smith, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher W. Reed SCI Rockview Box A – FQ8199 Bellefonte, PA 16823 :rlm 4