The opinion
J-S48017-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL BARONI :
:
Appellant : No. 1863 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 7, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-23-CR-0000845-1982
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 22, 2025
Appellant Michael Baroni appeals pro se from the order dismissing his
serial Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition as untimely. On appeal,
Appellant argues that the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing his
PCRA petition seeking relief in the interest of justice. We affirm.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this matter are well
known to the parties. See Commonwealth v. Baroni, 3593 EDA 2018, 2019
WL 2323819, at *1 (Pa. Super. filed May 31, 2019) (unpublished mem.).
Briefly, on October 6, 1982, a jury convicted Appellant of two counts of
second-degree murder and related offenses involving the deaths of two young
children.2 On April 7, 1983, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b).
J-S48017-24
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed
Appellant’s judgment of sentence on March 22, 1985, and on October 4, 1985,
our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Baroni, 1233 Philadelphia 1983 (Pa. Super. filed Mar.
22, 1985) (unpublished mem.), appeal denied, 417 E.D. Allocatur Docket
1985 (Pa. filed Oct. 4, 1985). Appellant did not file a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellant
subsequently filed several PCRA petitions, all of which were ultimately
unsuccessful.
On February 28, 2024, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition.3
The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss
Appellant’s petition on March 13, 2024. After Appellant filed a response, the
PCRA court issued an order denying Appellant’s petition.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The PCRA court issued a Rule
1925(a) opinion concluding that Appellant’s petition was untimely.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review:
____________________________________________
3 We note that Appellant styled his petition as a response a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
notice that the PCRA entered in a prior PCRA matter which was ultimately
dismissed in 2023. However, because the prior PCRA case was no longer
pending, the PCRA court properly treated Appellant’s filing as a separate PCRA
petition. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4, 12 (Pa. 2012)
reiterating that “[m]isdesignation does not preclude a court from deducing the
proper nature of a pleading” and concluding that regardless of how a petitioner
labels a PCRA filing, the PCRA court may treat a subsequent filing as a separate
PCRA petition).
-2-
J-S48017-24
Whether the [PCRA] court erred and abused its discretion in
dismissing Appellant’s [PCRA petition] seeking relief in the interest
of justice?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review
is well settled:
[O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is
limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is
supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal
error. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when
supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we
apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal
conclusions.
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(citations omitted and formatting altered).
“[T]he timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation
omitted). A PCRA petition, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall
be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final” unless the
petitioner pleads and proves one of three statutory exceptions. 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes “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.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3).
It is the PCRA petitioner’s “burden to allege and prove that one of the
timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d
-3-
J-S48017-24
1091, 1094 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted and some formatting altered). “If
the petition is determined to be untimely, and no exception has been pled and
proven, the petition must be dismissed without a hearing because
Pennsylvania courts are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the
petition.” Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 519 (Pa. Super. 2011)
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on December 3,
1985, the date on which the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the Supreme Court of the United States expired. See 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 20.1 (effective August 1, 1984;
allowing 60 days to file petition for writ of certiorari), repealed and replaced
by U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 (effective Jan. 1, 1990). Appellant’s instant PCRA
petition, filed on August 3, 2022, is facially untimely. 4 Further, as noted
previously, Appellant did not plead and prove an exception to the PCRA time
bar in his pro se petition. Cf. Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. Because
Appellant’s petition is facially untimely and Appellant neither pled nor proved
a timeliness exception under the PCRA, he has failed to meet the jurisdictional
threshold for a court to consider the merits of his claim and no relief is due.
See Jackson, 30 A.3d at 519; see also Brown, 111 A.3d at 175. For these
____________________________________________
4 We note that due to amendments to the PCRA enacted in 1995, petitioners
had until January 16, 1997, to timely file a first PCRA petition.
Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396, 398 (Pa. Super. 2002).
However, that deadline did not apply to second or subsequent PCRA petitions,
regardless of when the first petition was filed. Id. Here, because Appellant
filed his first petition for state collateral relief under the former Post Conviction
Hearing Act on August 21, 1987, he was not entitled to the grace period
discussed in Fairiror. See id.
-4-
J-S48017-24
reasons, the PCRA court correctly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction
to review the merits of Appellant’s petition. See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at
1043. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 5/22/2025
-5-