### Drug Dealer’s Bid for Post-Prison Relief Shot Down
Pennsylvania’s Superior Court slammed the door on Rakim Lamar Johnson’s second attempt at post-conviction relief, ruling he’s ineligible because he’s no longer serving time for his drug crimes. The court affirmed the denial of his PCRA petition as meritless, emphasizing that once a sentence ends, the window for such challenges slams shut under state law.
It all started in October 2016 when Johnson, desperate for a ride from Pittsburgh to Altoona, handed an undercover cop heroin and crack cocaine instead of cash. Busted for possession with intent to deliver and criminal use of a communication facility, he cut a deal: a negotiated guilty plea. On September 1, 2017, the Blair County judge handed down 18 months to 5 years for the main charge, a concurrent 6 to 24 months for the phone-related count, plus credit for time served. Johnson skipped a direct appeal.
Fast-forward to 2021: Johnson’s first PCRA petition—claiming who-knows-what—got tossed as untimely, and Superior Court backed that up in 2022, with Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court denying review in 2023. Undeterred, he fired off a second pro se petition in April 2024, alleging ineffective counsel and after-discovered evidence. By March 2025, the PCRA court dismissed it outright as meritless.
The legal showdown hinged on a PCRA eligibility rule straight from 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i): You must be “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole” for the challenged conviction. Courts have long held—no ifs, ands, or buts—that relief vanishes the instant your sentence expires, even if you filed while still inside (see Commonwealth v. Williams, 977 A.2d 1174). Johnson’s max-out date? No later than September 1, 2022, factoring in credit. By then, he was a free man (sentence-wise), making his 2024 plea a non-starter.
In a crisp judgment order, Judge Dubow’s panel affirmed on December 8, 2025: Ineligibility kills the case. Johnson’s pro se appeal, challenging the “meritless” call, hit a brick wall—PCRA courts don’t bend for technicalities when the law’s this clear.