petition raising exception in Pennsylvania

2025Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). ____________________________________________ 2 For an exception to apply, a petitioner must (1) plead and prove one of the exceptions set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii); and (2) file a petition raising the exception within one year from the date on which the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -5- J-S19019-25 The instant petition is untimely on its face.

2024Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). ____________________________________________ 3 For an exception to apply, a petitioner must (1) plead and prove one of the exceptions set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii); and (2) file a petition raising the exception within one year from when the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -4- J-S42027-23 It is undisputed that the instant petition is facially untimely.

2025Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claim.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 , ____________________________________________ 3 For an exception to apply, a petitioner must (1) plead and prove one of the exceptions set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii); and (2) file a petition raising the exception within one year from the date on which the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -4- J-S40013-24 522 (Pa. 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Small, 23

2025Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claim.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (overruled on ____________________________________________ 3 For an exception to apply, a petitioner must (1) plead and prove one of the exceptions set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii); and (2) file a petition raising the exception within one year from the date on which the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -4- J-S12003-25 other grounds by Commonwealth v. Small, 238

2018Thus, the question then becomes whether petitioner had an available remedy under the PCRA[.] Commonwealth v. Deaner, 779 A.2d 578, 580 (Pa. Super.

2005“However, a petition raising a claim for which the PCRA does not offer a remedy will not be considered a PCRA petition.” Id.

2017Furtherj “a petition raising an exception to the one-year timeliness requirement must ‘be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented’ pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)[.]” Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350 , 956 A.2d 978, 982 (2008).

2017Furtherj “a petition raising an exception to the one-year timeliness requirement must ‘be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented’ pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)[.]” Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350 , 956 A.2d 978, 982 (2008).

2018Accordingly, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in treating his petition for habeas corpus as a PCRA petition.2 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638, 640 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA subsumes remedy of habeas corpus with respect to remedies offered under PCRA).

2001Id.

2026“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies." Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 719 (Pa. 2008)(citation omitted).

2024At issue here is the newly-discovered facts exception, Section 9545(b)(ii). -5- J-S42030-23 A Brady violation claim may qualify as a newly-discovered fact, as long as petitioner establishes that: 1) “the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown” and 2) the fact “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii); see also Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1271-72 (Pa. 2007).

2021See Lark, supra (holding that when PCRA appeal is pending, subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until resolution of review of pending PCRA petition by highest state court in which review is sought, or at expiration of time for seeking such review).

2018Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at 736 . -2- J-S49016-18 986 A.2d 128 (Pa. 2009) (“This Court has previously held that we have jurisdiction over an Atkins claim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) so long as the petition raising the claim was filed within sixty days of the Atkins decision, as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)”) (citation omitted).

2005“Thus, ‘the question becomes whether petitioner had an available remedy under the PCRA[.]’ ” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Lusch, 759 A.2d 6, 8 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 565 Pa. 640 , 771 A.2d 1281 (2001)). ¶ 14 The PCRA “is not intended to...provide relief from collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.” 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9542.