Com. v. Kent, R., 236 MDA 2016

In 1995 Ronald J. Kent pleaded guilty to multiple robbery, theft, and receiving stolen property charges and received concurrent and consecutive sentences; he served about 4 years, 11 months, 29 days before parole and later had probation revoked and was resentenced.
The trial court in 2003 resentenced Kent on robbery to 7 to 15 years and credited his sentence with prior time served (4 years, 11 months, 29 days) plus 83 days from an earlier incarceration.
Kent filed multiple post-conviction (PCRA) petitions and appeals from 2003 through 2015; earlier PCRA challenges were denied and those denials were affirmed on appeal.
On February 12, 2015 the PCRA court issued an order setting out the credit time applicable to Kent; subsequent appellate activity and filings followed (appeals, motions to withdraw, reinstatements) in 2015.
While an appeal from the 2015 PCRA order was still pending, Kent filed on November 20, 2015 a new “Motion for Clarification of Sentence & Credit of Time” (styled as a PCRA petition) and a motion seeking to proceed pro se by video conference. The PCRA court dismissed these motions on November 24, 2015 for lack of jurisdiction because an earlier PCRA appeal remained pending.
Kent appealed the dismissal; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider a subsequent PCRA petition filed while an earlier PCRA appeal was still pending.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kent)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
Whether the trial court omitted 67 days of previously granted credit and thus has jurisdiction to correct and order DOC to re-credit Kent	Kent argued the court’s February 12, 2015 credit calculation failed to include a 67-day period already granted at resentencing and asked the court to correct the error and order re-crediting	The PCRA court treated the filing as a subsequent PCRA petition made while an earlier PCRA appeal was pending and asserted it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim	Denied — PCRA court lacked jurisdiction because a prior PCRA appeal was pending when this petition was filed; Superior Court affirmed
Whether the matter was not previously determined because the alleged error arose after the February 12, 2015 credit calculation	Kent asserted the issue was newly created after the court’s initial credit calculation and therefore not previously litigated	The PCRA court maintained the claim was barred because PCRA timeliness/previous litigation rules apply and it could not act while an earlier appeal was pending	Denied — claim treated as a successive PCRA filing subject to jurisdictional bar; Superior Court affirmed

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (explains the prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (holding a court lacks jurisdiction to review a subsequent PCRA petition filed while an earlier PCRA appeal is pending)
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719 (Pa. 2003) (establishes that timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional and courts may not consider untimely petitions)
Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding claims about credit for time served concern legality of sentence and are cognizable under the PCRA)