legality claim in Pennsylvania

2020See Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016) (holding that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review"); see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that while Alleyne claims go to the legality of the sentence, a court cannot review a legality claim where it does not have jurisdiction).

2019See Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016) (holding that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.”); Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014) -4- J-A28045-18 (stating that while Alleyne claims go to the legality of the sentence, a court cannot review a legality claim where it does not have jurisdiction).2 Based upon the foregoing, the PCRA court properly dismissed Pecal’s first PCRA Petition as untimely filed.

2020See Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016) (holding that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review"); see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that while Alleyne claims go to the legality of the sentence, a court cannot review a legality claim where it does not have jurisdiction).

2019See Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016) (holding that “Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases pending on collateral review.”); Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014) -4- J-A28045-18 (stating that while Alleyne claims go to the legality of the sentence, a court cannot review a legality claim where it does not have jurisdiction).2 Based upon the foregoing, the PCRA court properly dismissed Pecal’s first PCRA Petition as untimely filed.

2020This Court has further explained: “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised for the first time in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim.” Commonwealth v. Slotcavage, 939 A.2d 901 , 903 n. 4 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “[W]hen a petitioner files an untimely PCRA petition raising a legality-of-sentence claim, the claim is not waived, but the jurisdictional limits of the PCRA itself render the claim incapable of review.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A

2020This Court has further explained: “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised for the first time in an untimely PCRA petition for which no time-bar exception applies, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the claim.” Commonwealth v. Slotcavage, 939 A.2d 901 , 903 n. 4 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “[W]hen a petitioner files an untimely PCRA petition raising a legality-of-sentence claim, the claim is not waived, but the jurisdictional limits of the PCRA itself render the claim incapable of review.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A

2025See Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2024See Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2017See Commonwealth v. Henderson, 938 A.2d 1063 , 1065 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that appellant’s failure to include a legality of sentence challenge in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement did not result in waiver, as such a claim cannot be waived where jurisdictional requirements are met). -3- J-S75035-16 because the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt all facts necessary to require imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence.

2017See Commonwealth v. Henderson, 938 A.2d 1063 , 1065 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that appellant’s failure to include a legality of sentence challenge in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement did not result in waiver, as such a claim cannot be waived where jurisdictional requirements are met). 5 We note that Kohli does not identify the “fact” that the trial court utilized in imposing the mandatory minimum sentence.

2024See Commonwealth v. Prinkey, 277 A.3d 554 , 562 (Pa. 2022) (“a claim that a sentence was imposed pursuant to a facially unconstitutional sentencing statute is a legality challenge because, if the claim prevails, the sentence was imposed under statutory authority that never lawfully existed”); In re M.W., 725 A.2d 729, 731 (Pa. 1999) (holding that, when a sentencing issue “centers upon [a] court’s statutory authority” to impose a sentence, rather than the “court’s exercise of discretion in fashioning” the sentence, the issue raised implicates the legality of the sentence imposed) (citations omi

2024See Appellant’s Brief, at 11-12, citing Commonwealth v. Shaw, 744 A.2d 739 (Pa. 2000).

2022See Commonwealth v. Monarch, 200 A.3d 51, 57 (Pa. 2019) (providing that a claim that “enhanced mandatory minimum sentences authorized by the [J-31-2022] - 11 statute are unconstitutional when based on a refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test” constitutes a challenge to the legality of the sentence); see also Moore, 247 A.3d at 997 (explaining that, because a sentencing court does not have authority to sentence a defendant under a sentencing statute that is unconstitutionally vague, a void-for- vagueness challenge “is exactly the type of claim” that we held “implicated the legality of th

2019Commonwealth v. Stokes, 38 A.3d 846, 858 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2018Furthermore, in his Petition seeking reinstatement of his direct ____________________________________________ 3 We acknowledge the decision in Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 177 A.3d 182, 191-92 (Pa. 2018), which held that where petitioner’s sentence was rendered illegal by Alleyne prior to his judgment of sentence becoming final, and he presented a legality challenge in a timely PCRA petition, he is entitled to have his sentence remedied.

2017See Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121, 125-26 (Pa. 2016); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351 (2004) (stating that a United States Supreme Court decision resulting in a new rule of law “applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review.”). -8- J-S12038-17 was subject to the penalties set forth in section 3804(c)(2), 4 as he pled guilty to DUI under section 3802(a)(1), his second offense, and refused to consent to a blood test.

2017See Jackson, 30 A.3d at 521 (recognizing that although there is "limited authority of a trial court to correct patent errors in sentences absent statutory jurisdiction under [42 Pa.C.S.A. §] 5505; it [does] not establish an alternate remedy for collateral relief that sidesteps the jurisdictional requirements of the PCRA."). - 6 - J -S23041-17 102 A.3d at 995 (stating that while Alleyne claims go to the legality of the sentence, a court cannot review a legality claim where it does not have jurisdiction).

2017See Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121, 125-26 (Pa. 2016); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351 (2004) (stating that a United States Supreme Court decision resulting in a new rule of law “applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review.”). -8- J-S12038-17 was subject to the penalties set forth in section 3804(c)(2), 4 as he pled guilty to DUI under section 3802(a)(1), his second offense, and refused to consent to a blood test.

2016Because Fair failed to meet the requirements of the third timeliness exception, the PCRA court properly dismissed Fair’s PCRA Petition.3 Order affirmed. 3 To the extent that Fair argues that Alleyne represents a newly-discovered fact, we note that judicial decisions cannot “be considered newly-discovered facts which could invoke the protections afforded by section 9545(b)(1)(ii).” Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759, 763 (Pa. Super. 2013). -4- J-S54043-16 Judgment Entered.

2016See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that neither the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has held that Alleyne is to be applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence has become final); id. (stating that while Alleyne raises a legality of sentence challenge, courts cannot review a legality claim where is does not have jurisdiction); see also Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2015).

2014See Morris, supra at 577-578 .

2010See Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa.Super.2001) (citation omitted) (illegal sentence can never be waived and may be reviewed sua sponte by court).

2007See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (1999) ("Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.”). 5 .

2007See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (1999) ("Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.”). 5 .