Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Bender](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811168/com-v-lugo-arias-k/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Lugo-Arias, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2092 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Bender

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (617)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [John T. Bender](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8224/john-t-bender/)

J-S43035-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
KEVIN LUGO-ARIAS :
:
Appellant : No. 2092 EDA 2025

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 6, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0005445-2022

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 19, 2026

Appellant, Kevin Lugo-Arias, appeals from the order denying his petition

filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

After review, we affirm.

A detailed recitation of the facts is not relevant to our disposition.

Briefly, Appellant was charged with one count each of possession of a firearm

by a person prohibited, possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), and

recklessly endangering another person (REAP). PCRA Court Opinion (PCO),

5/12/25, at 1-6. On April 12, 2023, Appellant pled guilty to one count of PIC

and one count of REAP, and the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of

four years of probation for PIC and a term of two years of probation for REAP,

to run concurrently. Id. at 5-6; N.T., Guilty Plea and Sentencing, 4/12/23, at

1. This resulted in an aggregate sentence of four years of probation. N.T.,

Guilty Plea and Sentencing, 4/12/23, at 10. Additionally, the trial court
J-S43035-25

ordered that if Appellant did not violate his probation or incur any new criminal

charges, Appellant’s sentence would terminate after two years. Id. Appellant

did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.

On May 9, 2024, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. Appellant

retained private counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition on June 19,

1. On October 17, 2024, the PCRA court entered notice of its intent to

dismiss Appellant’s amended PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. However, the PCRA court provided Appellant twenty days

to file a second amended petition. On November 6, 2024, Appellant, through

counsel, filed a second amended PCRA petition. After several continuances,

the PCRA court held a hearing on Appellant’s second amended PCRA petition

on March 6, 2025. The PCRA court denied Appellant’s second amended PCRA

petition concluding that Appellant failed to establish his claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Order 3/6/25; PCRA Court Opinion (PCO), 5/12/25, at

12-19.

On April 4, 2025, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. In a prior

memorandum filed on February 5, 2026, we noted that “[t]o be eligible for

relief under this subchapter, the petitioner must plead and prove by a

preponderance of the evidence . . . [t]hat the petitioner has been convicted

of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is

granted . . . currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole

for the crime[.]” Commonwealth v. Lugo-Arias, 2092 EDA 2025, 2026 WL

312346, *1 (Pa. Super. filed February 5, 2026)(unpublished memorandum)

-2-
J-S43035-25

(quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i)). Because we were unable to determine

from the record whether Appellant was serving a sentence of imprisonment,

probation, or parole in this case, we remanded the matter to the PCRA court

to make this determination and supplement the record. Id. at *2. The PCRA

court complied with this Court’s directive, and the record in this matter is now

complete. See PCRA Court Order, 2/11/26. In its response to this Court’s

prior memo, the PCRA court confirmed that Appellant is no longer serving a

sentence of imprisonment, probation, or parole as required pursuant to 42

Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i). Id.

Regarding PCRA eligibility, “[a]s 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. To grant relief at a time when the

petitioner is not currently serving ... a sentence would be to ignore the

language of the statute.” Commonwealth v. Tinsley, 200 A.3d 104, 107

(Pa. Super. 2018) (formatting altered and citations omitted); see also

Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493, 503 (Pa. 2016) (holding that

because the petitioner was no longer serving a sentence, “he was ineligible

for PCRA relief, and, thus, both the PCRA court and the Superior Court lacked

jurisdiction to entertain the petition”). “The burden of proving that a petitioner

is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole rests on

the petitioner.” Commonwealth v. Soto, 983 A.2d 212, 213-14 (Pa. Super.

2009).

-3-
J-S43035-25

Because Appellant is no longer serving a sentence in this matter, he is

not eligible for PCRA relief. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i); see also Tinsley,

200 A.3d at 107. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing

Appellant’s petition, albeit on different grounds. See Tinsley, 200 A.3d at

107 (affirming order denying the appellant’s PCRA petition because the

appellant was not eligible for relief due to the expiration of his sentence); see

also Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153, 1157 (Pa. Super. 2009)

(stating that this Court “may affirm the decision of the PCRA court if there is

any basis on the record to support the PCRA court’s action; this is so even if

we rely on a different basis in our decision to affirm”) (citation omitted and

formatting altered).

Order affirmed.

Date: 3/19/2026

-4-