failure to raise claim in Pennsylvania

2024Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 , 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that, an ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel claim layered on top of a claim involving trial counsel’s ineffectiveness does not satisfy the newly-discovered facts exception to the PCRA jurisdictional time-bar); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 , 186 (Pa. 2016) (stating that, couching a petitioner’s claim in terms of ineffectiveness will not save an ____________________________________________ 22 Section 9545(b)(1)(i) provides a timeliness exception when a petitioner establishes that “the failure to raise th

2024Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that, an ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel claim layered on top of a claim involving trial counsel’s ineffectiveness does not satisfy the newly-discovered facts exception to the PCRA jurisdictional time-bar); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 186 (Pa. 2016) (stating that, couching a petitioner’s claim in terms of ineffectiveness will not save an ____________________________________________ 22 Section 9545(b)(1)(i) provides a timeliness exception when a petitioner establishes that “the failure to raise the

2025The PCRA sets forth three exceptions to its jurisdictional time-bar under which the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence one or more of the following: -4- J-S43016-24 (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (

2019Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a judgment of sentence becomes final only if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii

2026A Brady claim may meet the governmental interference exception if the petitioner proves that the failure to raise the claim was the result of governmental interference and “the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) Both exceptions required Benson to plead and prove due diligence in learning the information.

2025See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d ____________________________________________ 3 These exceptions apply when respectively “the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim,” and “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii). -4- J-S23040-25 1120, 1126 (Pa. 2006).

2020A judgment is final “‘at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.’” Id. (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3)). -9- J-S53034-19 Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a judgment of sentence becomes final only if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of

2020Generally, to obtain merits review of a PCRA petition filed more than one year after the judgment of sentence became final, the petitioner must allege and prove at least one of the three timeliness exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due di

2020A petitioner may only file a PCRA petition beyond one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final if: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Suprem

2020A petitioner may only file a PCRA petition beyond one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final if: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Suprem

2020Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. 2000) (holding that an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is not sufficient ____________________________________________ 5 An untimely PCRA Petition may be reviewed if the petitioner pleads and proves the applicability of one of the following exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is

2009In addition, “when a defendant’s PCRA appeal is pending before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review is sought, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Commonwealth v. Lark, 560 Pa. 487, 493 , 746 A.2d 585, 588 (2000). (footnote omitted) Moreover, “[i]f the subsequent petition is not filed within one year of the date when the judgment became final, then the petitioner must plead and prove that one of the three exceptions to the time bar under 42 Pa.C.S. §954

2025The PCRA provides three exceptions to its time bar: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylva

2024The PCRA provides three exceptions to its time bar: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court -5- J-S09011

2025See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa.Super. 2013) (finding that appellant’s failure to challenge the absence of a Rule 907 notice on appeal constitutes waiver of this defect). -5- J-S18037-25 (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligenc

2023Consequently, Huertas has the burden to plead and prove one of the exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or ____________________________________________ Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462,

2021Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final unless the petitioner alleges, and proves, that an exception to the time limit for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met. 2 A PCRA petition ____________________________________________ 2 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference of government officials with the presentation of the (Footnote

2020See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651-52 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).3 ____________________________________________ 2 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference of government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States. (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exer

2025See Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1093 ; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).7 In his petition, Woodham alleged government interference in the form of withheld evidence concerning Jessica Parker’s (“Parker”) criminal record,8 newly discovered evidence in the form of trial counsel’s failure to request discovery or call witnesses, and a new constitutional right retroactively recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the United States Supreme ____________________________________________ 7 The time-bar exceptions are as follows: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of

2024See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 , 1093 n.2 (Pa. 2010) (explaining that the 1995 amendments to the PCRA provided that a petitioner whose judgment of sentence became final on or before January 16, 1996, had a one-year grace period or until January 16, 1997, to file a first PCRA petition). -4- J-S40008-23 Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government offi

2020However, an untimely petition may be received when the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that any of the three limited exceptions to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.6 See Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa. ____________________________________________ 6 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the

2019However, an untimely petition may be received when the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that any of the three limited exceptions to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.2 See Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa. ____________________________________________ 2 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the

2018Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2001). ____________________________________________ 1 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constituti

2018Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2001). ____________________________________________ 3 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constituti

2026The governmental interference exception, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), which permits an otherwise untimely PCRA petition to be filed if it pleads and proves that “the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. 2018) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)).

2025“The governmental interference exception permits an otherwise untimely PCRA petition to be filed if it pleads and proves that the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Commonwealth v. Staton, 646 Pa. 284 , 293, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (2018) (internal citation omitted).

2024That statutory exception requires a petitioner to ____________________________________________ 2 A “second or subsequent petition must present a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” Stokes, 959 A.2d at 309 . -7- J-S15039-24 plead and prove that “the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials.” 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(i).

2023In other words, a petitioner is required to show that but for the interference of a government actor “he could not have filed his claim earlier.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 ([Pa.] 2008). … Appellant has failed to plead that the failure to raise this claim was the result of government interference or that he could not have obtained the information earlier with the exercise of due diligence.

2019Generally, a PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment is final and a petitioner has the burden of proving that an exception to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(l)(i), (ii), and (iii), applies to excuse the filing of a petition after the one-year deadline has expired.4 4 The exceptions to the PCRA's one-year time limit are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference of government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution

2019Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1272 (Pa. 2007). ____________________________________________ 6 These exceptions are: (i) The failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized b

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 , 995 Pa.Super. 2014 ) (“[A]lthough ____________________________________________ 3 These exceptions are: (i) The failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional

2020A petitioner must file a PCRA petition within one year of the date on which the petitioner’s judgment became final, unless one of the three statutory exceptions applies: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is

2026See id. at 17 . -5- J-S02007-26 Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercis

2024See id. at 17 . -4- J-S03029-24 Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercis

2020The instant petition, filed on May 15, 2019, is over nine years late. 3 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference of government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by th

2020The jurisdictional time bar can be overcome only by satisfaction of one of the three statutory exceptions codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).3 ____________________________________________ 3 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the [Appellant] and could not have b

2021The PCRA provides three exceptions to its timeliness requirements. (1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the p

2019Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157, 1161 (Pa. 2003). -5- J-S38027-18 The three statutory exceptions for a facially untimely petition under the PCRA consist of the following: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right ass

2020“A petition invoking one of these exceptions must be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been presented.” 6 Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 5 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2019“A petition invoking one of these exceptions must be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been presented.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 5 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2018Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a -4- J-S32018-18 judgment of sentence became final only if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due dil

2018Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a judgment of sentence became final only if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the following three statutory exceptions: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; -5- J-S19027-18 (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due dil

2023Under this framework, an appellant must either file a petition within one year of his judgment of sentence becoming final under Section 9545(b)(3), or “plead” and “prove” that one of the enumerated exceptions apply. “[T]here is no generalized equitable exception to the jurisdictional one-year time bar pertaining to post-conviction petitions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264, 267 (Pa. 2008).

2021Under this framework, Appellant must either file a petition within one year of his judgment of sentence becoming final under § 9545(b)(3), or “plead” and “prove” that one of the enumerated exceptions apply. “[T]here is no generalized equitable exception to the jurisdictional one- year time bar pertaining to post-conviction petitions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264, 267 (Pa. 2008) For the purposes of the PCRA, Appellant’s sentence became final on July 11, 1988, when the time for him to seek a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s denia

2017An untimely petition nevertheless may be received when the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that any of the three limited exceptions to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.2 “However, the PCRA limits the reach of the exceptions by ____________________________________________ 2 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the (Footnote Continued Next Page) -8- J-S38024-17 providing that a petit

2016Nevertheless, an untimely petition may be received when the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that any of the three limited exceptions to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.4 “However, the PCRA limits the reach of the exceptions by providing that a petition invoking any of the exceptions must be filed within 60 days of the date the claim first could have been presented.” ____________________________________________ 3 The year 2004 was a leap year. 4 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to ra

2025Generally, “a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not provide an exception to the PCRA time bar.” Commonwealth v. Sims, 251 A.3d 445, 448 (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 265 A.3d 194 (2021).

2024Generally, “a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not provide an exception to the PCRA time bar.” Commonwealth v. Sims, 251 A.3d 445, 448 (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 265 A.3d 194 (2021).

2025See Scott II, 284 A.3d at 198 nn.16-17 (citing Section 5103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103) (“declin[ing] to remand the case to the Commonwealth Court with directions to transfer the petitions to the relevant courts of common pleas”; concluding that “judicial economy dictate[d] . . . affirm[ing] the order” where the inmates “concede[d] that their petitions would be dismissed as untimely,” such that “there [was] no possibility that the result would be any different”; and further explaining that “[t]he PCRA exists to provide finality to the criminal process and the General Assembly did

2018See id.4 “If the [PCRA] petition is determined to be untimely, and no exception has been pled and proven, the petition must be dismissed without a hearing because Pennsylvania courts are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.” Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 519 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 47 A.3d 845 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 4 The exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim