Com. v. Span, J.
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
Date FiledNovember 10, 2026
Docket2273 EDA 2025
JudgeBender
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
J-S25041-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2273 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002172-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2274 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002173-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2275 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002174-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-S25041-26
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2276 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002180-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2277 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002181-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2278 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002185-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
-2-
J-S25041-26
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2279 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002186-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2280 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002187-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2281 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002188-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2282 EDA 2025
-3-
J-S25041-26
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002189-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2283 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002192-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2284 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002193-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN SPAN :
:
Appellant : No. 2285 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2025
-4-
J-S25041-26
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004261-2023
BEFORE: SULLIVAN, J., BECK, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 10, 2026
Appellant, John Span, appeals from the order entered on August 26,
2025, that denied his petitions filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA)1 in the above-captioned matters.2 Appellant’s counsel, Peter A. Levin,
Esq., has filed a Turner/Finley3 “no merit” brief and petition to withdraw.
After review, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the order
denying PCRA relief.
The PCRA court summarized the relevant background and procedural
history in its opinion filed on October 10, 2025. See PCRA Court Opinion
(PCO), 10/10/25, at 2. Briefly, on August 15, 2023, Appellant entered a
negotiated guilty plea to 13 counts of burglary and 2 counts of criminal
conspiracy. See id. On that same day, the trial court accepted the plea and
imposed the negotiated sentence of 11½ to 23 months of incarceration in
accordance with the plea agreement at trial court dockets 2172-2023, 2173-
2023, 2174-2023, 2181-2023, 2185-2023, 2186-2023, 2188-2023, 2189-
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
2 In an order filed on September 9, 2025, this Court consolidated the above-
captioned appeals sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513.
3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-5-
J-S25041-26
2023, 2192-2023, 2193-2023, and 4261-2023. At the two remaining trial
court dockets, 2180-2023 and 2187-2023, the trial court likewise imposed the
negotiated sentence of four years of probation on each. The trial court ordered
all sentences to run concurrently resulting in an aggregate sentence of 11½
to 23 months of incarceration with 4 years of concurrent probation. See id.
On July 13, 2024, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the PCRA
court appointed counsel. Counsel filed an amended PCRA petition on
November 1, 2024. On June 27, 2025, the PCRA court issued notice of its
intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and on
August 26, 2025, the court dismissed Appellant’s petition.
Appellant filed a timely appeal,4 and the PCRA court ordered Appellant
to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In lieu of filing a Rule 1925(b) statement, counsel filed a
statement of intent to withdraw pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4), having
concluded that there were no arguably meritorious issues for appeal. The
PCRA court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 10, 2025. On January
28, 2026, counsel filed a motion to withdraw and Turner/Finley brief in this
Court.
The lone issue identified in the Turner/Finley brief is Appellant’s claim
that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered
____________________________________________
4 Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal at each trial court docket. As
noted above, the appeals were consolidated, and we refer to this appeal in the
singular.
-6-
J-S25041-26
because Appellant believed that he would receive 8 months of credit for time
served on a separate case in Bucks County. Turner/Finley Brief at 6. Before
we address the merits of the issue identified in the Turner/Finley brief, we
must first determine whether counsel complied with the procedural
requirements of Turner and Finley. “A Turner/Finley brief must: (1) detail
the nature and extent of counsel’s review of the case; (2) list each issue the
petitioner wishes to have reviewed; and (3) explain counsel’s reasoning for
concluding that the petitioner’s issues are meritless.” Commonwealth v.
Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691 (Pa. Super. 2019). “Counsel must also send a
copy of the brief to the petitioner, along with a copy of the petition to
withdraw, and inform the petitioner of the right to proceed pro se or to retain
new counsel.” Id. If these requirements are met, “we then conduct an
independent review of the petitioner’s issues.” Id.
Here, counsel has substantially complied with the Turner/Finley
requirements. Counsel has filed in this Court a Turner/Finley brief and
petition to withdraw as counsel. Moreover, counsel attached to his petition a
letter he sent to Appellant informing him of his rights. Knecht, 219 A.3d at
691.5 Accordingly, we now conduct our independent review.
As stated above, in the Turner/Finley brief, counsel addressed
Appellant’s claim that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily entered based on Appellant’s claim that he believed he would
____________________________________________
5 Appellant has not filed a response.
-7-
J-S25041-26
receive 8 months of credit for time served. Turner/Finley Brief at 6. Counsel
concludes that Appellant’s challenges concerning the guilty pleas at 2172-
2023, 2173-2023, 2174-2023, 2181-2023, 2185-2023, 2186-2023, 2188-
2023, 2189-2023, 2192-2023, 2193-2023, and 4261-2023 are time barred
under the PCRA because Appellant has completed serving the sentences at
those dockets. Further, although Appellant is currently serving the sentences
imposed at the two remaining dockets, 2180-2023 and 2187-2023, counsel
concludes that the challenge to the voluntary nature of his plea with respect
to those two dockets lacks merit. See id. at 6-9.
The standard of review for an order denying a PCRA petition is whether
that determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal
error. Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2012).
The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for
the findings in the certified record. Id.
To be entitled to PCRA relief, a petitioner must establish the applicability
of one or more of the enumerated errors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2).
Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426, 438 (Pa. 2011). However, in
order to be eligible for relief, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that he or she has been convicted of a crime
and that he or she is “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation
or parole for the crime.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i). A petitioner who has
completed serving his sentence is no longer eligible for PCRA relief.
Commonwealth v. Soto, 983 A.2d 212, 213 (Pa. Super. 2009);
-8-
J-S25041-26
Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718, 720 (Pa. 1997). When a PCRA
petitioner’s sentence has expired, the petitioner’s eligibility for PCRA relief has
also expired. See Commonwealth v. Plunkett, 151 A.3d 1108, 1109-10,
1112-13 (Pa. Super. 2016) (affirming the denial of the petitioner’s PCRA
petition where the petitioner’s sentence expired during pendency of his
appeal).
Here, Appellant’s sentences at trial court docket numbers 2172-2023,
2173-2023, 2174-2023, 2181-2023, 2185-2023, 2186-2023, 2188-2023,
2189-2023, 2192-2023, 2193-2023, and 4261-2023 expired on July 15, 2025,
when Appellant completed serving his incarceration sentence, and the PCRA
court correctly determined that Appellant is ineligible for relief under the
PCRA. See PCO, 10/10/25, at 2-3. Accordingly, we agree with counsel that
there are no arguably meritorious issues at these dockets due to the expiration
of Appellant’s sentences. Turner/Finley Brief at 6-7.
At trial court dockets 2180-2023 and 2187-2023, although Appellant
continues to serve his terms of probation and therefore meets the eligibility
requirement for PCRA relief under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i), counsel
concluded that Appellant’s issue concerning the voluntary nature of his plea is
meritless. Id. at 7-9.
At the outset, we observe that 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760, which governs credit
for time served, does not afford credit for time spent in custody to a sentence
of probation. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760. Furthermore, time served in one
criminal matter is not credited toward a sentence in a separate and distinct
-9-
J-S25041-26
matter. Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504, 520-521 (Pa. Super.
2016).
The PCRA court addressed time credit as it relates to dockets 2180-2023
and 2187-2023 as follows:
Appellant asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent,
or voluntary because he believed he would receive credit for
approximately 8 months served on a different matter in Bucks
County. This claim is belied by the record. At the time of his plea,
Appellant confirmed that he understood he would serve the full 23
months of confinement. N.T. [Plea Hearing,] 8/15/2023 6:2-20.
Later in the proceedings Appellant’s attorney, Keith Hadsell, told
this [c]ourt that Appellant would be 25 years old at the time he
was released from jail. Appellant corrected Attorney Hadsell and
informed him that he would be 26 at the time of his release. N.T.
8/15/2023 at 15:12-23. Appellant was born on May 24, 1999.
That means he would have been … 26 years, 1 month, and 21
days old at the time his term of confinement ended on July 15,
2025. It is therefore clear from the record that, at the time of his
plea, Appellant did not believe he would be eligible for release [at
the expiration of his minimum sentence], and that he understood
the length of his sentence. Moreover, it is legally impossible for
Appellant to receive “double credit” for time served in Bucks
County. See [Richard, 150 A.3d at 520-21] (“a defendant shall
be given credit for any days spent in custody prior to the
imposition of sentence, but only if such commitment is on the
offense for which sentence is imposed. Credit is not given,
however, for a commitment by reason of a separate and distinct
offense.”); see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d
1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“a defendant is not entitled to
receive credit against more than one sentence for the same time
served.”). Therefore, Appellant’s claims are without merit, and
this [c]ourt properly denied his petition.
PCO at 4-5 (some formatting altered).
We agree with the PCRA court’s assessment and conclude that
Appellant’s claim relative to trial court dockets 2180-2023 and 2187-2023
lacks merit. The record reflects that Appellant understood the terms and
- 10 -
J-S25041-26
length of his sentences, see N.T., 8/15/2023 at 6, 15, and in any event, time
spent in custody on a separate and distinct matter in Bucks County can not
be applied toward the instant cases in Philadelphia. See Richard, 150 A.3d
at 520-521. Further, our independent evaluation of the record has disclosed
no additional meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying
Appellant’s PCRA petition and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Date: 11/10/2026
- 11 -