Com. v. Gonzales, D.

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

381 MDA 2026

Judges

Neuman

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

J-S26045-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARYL GONZALES

Appellant

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 381 MDA 2026 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 30, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0002861-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and NEUMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NEUMAN, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 1, 2026

Appellant, Daryl Gonzales, appeals pro se from the January 30, 2026 order dismissing, as untimely, his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we conclude Appellant is no longer serving his sentence and therefore is ineligible for PCRA relief. Accordingly, we affirm.

The PCRA court set forth a brief procedural history of Appellant's case as follows:

Appellant entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence of a controlled substance, a second offense, … on October 2, 2023.^[1] On March 5, 2024, Appellant was sentenced to 9[0 days to] 23 months['] … incarceration…. [No post-sentence motions or direct appeal were filed; therefore, his sentence became final on April 5, ____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(i).

- 2 -

2024.²] Appellant filed a facially untimely, pro se [PCRA petition] … on September 16, 2025[,] and [the PCRA court] appointed counsel on September 17, 2025…. Appointed PCRA counsel filed a motion to withdraw … and accompanying Turner/Finley^[3]letter on November 10, 2025, which she served upon Appellant. Appellant responded to counsel's motion with a filing styled "PCRA Amendment - Newly Discovered Evidence." [The PCRA court] issued notice of [its] intent to dismiss Appellant's PCRA petition … on November 24, 2025, which included [its] reasons for [the] intended dismissal and advised Appellant he could respond within 20 days. Appellant responded to that order with a filing styled,

"Petitioner's Response to Rule 907 Notice…" on December 1, 2025. [The PCRA court] issued an order on January 30, 2026[,] dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition, granting PCRA counsel's motion to withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley, and providing additional reasons for dismissal which were responsive to Appellant's filings submitted after counsel moved to withdraw. Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 4/1/26, at 1-2 (citations to the record and unnecessary capitalization omitted). Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal on February 9, 2026. The PCRA court thereafter ordered him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal on March 5, 2026, and he timely complied on March 10, 2026. On appeal, Appellant states three issues for our review, which we reproduce verbatim:

I. Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing Appellant's petition as untimely?

____________________________________________

2 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(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."). 3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

- 3 -

II. Whether the PCRA court erred in concluding Appellant was ineligible?

III. Whether the PCRA court failed to address Appellant's preserved timeliness argument?

Appellant's Brief at unnumbered 2.

Before addressing the substantive merits of Appellant's issues, we first determine whether he is eligible for PCRA relief. In Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006), a panel of this Court noted:

Our [S]upreme [C]ourt has held that, to be eligible for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must be "currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation[,] or parole for the crime." 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9543(a)(1)(i). As soon as his sentence is completed, the petitioner becomes ineligible for relief, regardless of whether he was serving his sentence when he filed the

petition. Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, … 699 A.2d 718, 720 ([Pa.] 1997); Commonwealth v. Matin, 832 A.2d 1141, 1143 (Pa. Super. 2003)…. In addition, this [C]ourt determined in Commonwealth v. Fisher, 703 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1997), that the PCRA precludes relief for those petitioners whose sentences have expired, regardless of the collateral consequences of their sentence. Id. at 716 (citations omitted).

Id. at 941-42. Hence, a petitioner is ineligible for relief "where the PCRA court's order was issued while petitioner was still serving the required sentence, but that sentence terminated prior to the resolution of his appeal."

Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108, 1113 (Pa. Super. 2016). To grant relief at a time when a petitioner is not currently serving a sentence would be to ignore the language of the PCRA. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d at 720. Instantly, on March 5, 2024, Appellant was sentenced to 90 days to 23 months' incarceration. Thus, his sentence expired in February 2026. Although Appellant was still serving his sentence when he filed his PCRA

- 4 -

petition and when the PCRA court issued its January 30, 2026 order dismissing the petition, he is now ineligible for PCRA relief because he has completed his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i); Hart, supra; Plunkett, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/01/2026

Com. v. Gonzales, D.

Com. v. Gonzales, D.

Comments