Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Com. v. Feliz, C.
Citation: Not availableDocket: Com. v. Feliz, C. No. 1479 MDA 2016
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; May 12, 2017; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Clastul Feliz appeals pro se from the August 10, 2016 order of the post-conviction court denying his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) as untimely. The court affirmed the denial. Feliz was convicted in February 2004 for third-degree murder and firearms offenses, receiving a sentence of 20 to 40 years, and concurrently for receiving stolen property, sentenced to 9 months to 7 years. He did not appeal the stolen property sentence, making it final on March 4, 2004. Feliz had been extradited from Puerto Rico, where he faced unrelated charges and had a pending warrant for receiving stolen property. He timely appealed his murder conviction, which was affirmed on March 7, 2005, with finality on April 6, 2005, after he did not seek a further appeal. In February 2010, he filed his first PCRA petition, which was denied without appeal. A subsequent motion in January 2015 for corrected time credit was treated as a PCRA petition, challenging the legality of his sentence. After counsel filed a "no merit" letter, the PCRA court notified of its intent to dismiss the petition for being untimely. The court granted counsel's petition to withdraw and, as Appellant did not respond to the Rule 907 notice, denied his PCRA petition on August 10, 2016. Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal and complied with the PCRA court’s order to submit a concise statement of errors. He raises one issue for review: entitlement to time credit for pre-trial confinement due to state and federal arrests. The court's review standard for PCRA denial is whether the PCRA court's decision is supported by the evidence and free from legal error. The timeliness of Appellant's petition is crucial, as PCRA time limitations affect jurisdiction and cannot be disregarded. A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the judgment becoming final unless certain exceptions apply. Appellant's judgments for receiving stolen property (final in March 2004) and for murder (final in April 2005) render his January 2015 petition untimely. He failed to demonstrate any exceptions to the timeliness requirement from 42 Pa.C.S. 9545(b), not addressing them or explaining any circumstances that would allow for a late filing. The court noted that Appellant was aware of the time credit issue since his sentencing hearing over a decade prior. Therefore, the PCRA court's decision to deny the petition for being untimely was upheld. The order was affirmed, and judgment was entered on May 12, 2017.