PCRA timeliness requirement in Pennsylvania

2023Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 , -5- J-A01044-23 1038 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2020See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“The PCRA timeliness requirement . . . is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.”); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).

2020Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1038 (Pa. Super.2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 715 , 951 A.2d 1163 (2008) (citing Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1 , 753 A.2d 201, 203 (2000)).

2020Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1038 (Pa. Super.2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 715 , 951 A.2d 1163 (2008) (citing Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1 , 753 A.2d 201, 203 (2000)).

2024“The PCRA timeliness requirement [] is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245, 1248 (Pa. 2013).

2018Commonwealth v. Taylor , 620 Pa. 429 , 67 A.3d 1245 , 1248 (2013), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2695 , 189 L.Ed.2d 743 (2014) ("The PCRA timeliness requirement ... is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature. ...

2023See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 283 A.3d 178 , 188 (Pa. 2022) (“squarely reject[ing]” Taylor’s assertion that a judicial bias claim must be cognizable under state habeas corpus because the claim did not qualify for review under a PCRA timeliness exception); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 737-38 (Pa. 2003) (finding no merit to assertion that, “even if [petitioner’s] claims are time-barred under the PCRA, the PCRA court should have used its inherent power under common law to review his claims under Pennsylvania’s writ of habeas corpus”); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 737 (Pa. 2003) (finding no merit to assertion that, “even if [petitioner’s] claims are time-barred under the PCRA, the PCRA court should have used its inherent power under common law to review his claims under Pennsylvania’s writ of habeas corpus”); Fahy, 737 A.2d at 223 (rejecting argument that “even if [petitioner’s] claims are barred as untimely, his claims are entitled to review under our Commonwealth’s writ of habeas corpus”).

2023If a PCRA petition invoking one of the timeliness exceptions is “not filed within 60 days of the date that the claim could have been first brought, the [PCRA] court has no power to address the substantive merits of a petitioner’s PCRA claims.” Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000) (emphasis added).

2023See Commonwealth v. Stahl, 292 A.3d 1130 , 1136 (Pa. Super. 2023) (PCRA petitioners do not have “a right to file a second PCRA petition outside the PCRA’s one-year time limit as a method of raising ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel”); see also Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (A claim of ineffective counsel is not a valid exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement).

2018“It is the petitioner’s burden to plead and prove an exception to the PCRA-timeliness rule.” Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2018“It is the petitioner’s burden to plead and prove an exception to the PCRA-timeliness rule.” Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153, 1158 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2018See Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2017See Whitehawk, supra at 269-70 ; Johnston, supra at 1126 .

2016“It is the petitioner’s burden to plead and prove an exception to the PCRA-timeliness rule.” Blackwell, 936 A.2d at 500 (citation omitted).

2016“It is the petitioner’s burden to plead and prove an exception to the PCRA-timeliness rule.” Blackwell, 936 A.2d at 500 (citation omitted).

2018Commonwealth v. Taylor , 620 Pa. 429 , 67 A.3d 1245 , 1248 (2013), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2695 , 189 L.Ed.2d 743 (2014) ("The PCRA timeliness requirement ... is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature. ...

2018“The PCRA timeliness requirement, however, is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.” Id. (citation omitted).

2017In ____________________________________________ 3 Furthermore, to the extent that Richburg is claiming the Court’s decision in Hopkins satisfies the “newly-discovered facts” exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement, we note that “a judicial opinion does not qualify as a previously unknown ‘fact’ capable of triggering the timeliness exception set forth in section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759, 763 (Pa.Super. 2013).

2016“The PCRA timeliness requirement, however, is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.” Id. (citation omitted).

2023See Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094 (noting that the appellant bears the burden of establishing that a PCRA timeliness exception applies).

2023See Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094 (noting that the appellant bears the burden of establishing that a PCRA timeliness exception applies).

2023See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 283 A.3d 178 , 188 (Pa. 2022) (“squarely reject[ing]” Taylor’s assertion that a judicial bias claim must be cognizable under state habeas corpus because the claim did not qualify for review under a PCRA timeliness exception); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 737-38 (Pa. 2003) (finding no merit to assertion that, “even if [petitioner’s] claims are time-barred under the PCRA, the PCRA court should have used its inherent power under common law to review his claims under Pennsylvania’s writ of habeas corpus”); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 737 (Pa. 2003) (finding no merit to assertion that, “even if [petitioner’s] claims are time-barred under the PCRA, the PCRA court should have used its inherent power under common law to review his claims under Pennsylvania’s writ of habeas corpus”); Fahy, 737 A.2d at 223 (rejecting argument that “even if [petitioner’s] claims are barred as untimely, his claims are entitled to review under our Commonwealth’s writ of habeas corpus”).

2023Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2013). -2- J-S43041-22 that Appellant’s petition was untimely and that Appellant failed to establish an exception to the PCRA time bar.3 On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review: 1.

2016Appellant additionally argues that he was incompetent at the time he entered his guilty plea, but he raises this argument in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel, not in support of a PCRA timeliness exception. -5- J-S49009-16 constitutes waiver.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2016See Henkel, supra at 20 ; Johnston, supra at 1126 .

2016See Henkel, supra at 20 ; Johnston, supra at 1126 .

2018In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Murphy, 180 A.3d 402 (Pa.Super. 2018), this Court found that an appellant could not rely on Muniz to invoke the PCRA timeliness exception under subsection 9545(b)(1)(iii) -4- J-S41005-18 when the appellant was convicted of sex-related offenses in 2007 and his sentence became final in July 2009.

2018See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 180 A.3d 402 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 195 A.3d 559 (2018) (stating petitioner cannot rely on Muniz to meet timeliness exception under Section 9545(b) unless and until Supreme Court allows). -4- J-S73001-18 Judgment Entered.

2017Finally, even if we were to 'find the claim relevant to this appeal, it would be waived. "[I]it is'well-settled that in order for a new law to apply retroactively to a case pending on direct appeal, the issue had to be preserved in the trial court and at all subsequent stages of the adjudication up to and including the direct appeal.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 609 Pa. 605 , 17 A.3d 873, 893-94 (2011).

2017Finally, even if we were to 'find the claim relevant to this appeal, it would be waived. "[I]it is'well-settled that in order for a new law to apply retroactively to a case pending on direct appeal, the issue had to be preserved in the trial court and at all subsequent stages of the adjudication up to and including the direct appeal.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 609 Pa. 605 , 17 A.3d 873, 893-94 (2011).

2017Burton, 121 A.3d. at 1073 n.7. -7- J-S86026-16 punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner.” 121 A.3d at 1071 .

2017Burton, 121 A.3d. at 1073 n.7. -7- J-S86026-16 punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner.” 121 A.3d at 1071 .

2026See Staton, 184 A.3d at 954 ; Commonwealth v. Jones, 344 A.3d 1102 , 2025 WL 1938521 , at *3 (Pa. Super. 2025) (non-precedential memorandum) (concluding that Jones did not plead and prove a PCRA timeliness exception when he did not allege when he first learned of a detective’s alleged misconduct, did not establish reasonable efforts to ascertain the relevant facts, and did not assert how the Commonwealth prevented him from presenting his claims).

2026See Staton, 184 A.3d at 954 ; accord Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 326 A.3d 455 , 2024 WL 3914522 , at *1 (Pa. Super. 2024) (non-precedential memorandum) (affirming a PCRA court’s determination that materials in the sole custody of the police department constituted newly discovered facts for the purpose of section 9545(b)(1)(ii)).

2026See Bennett, supra. - 11 - J-S11034-26 language of the PCRA requires that the newly discovered facts 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)(ii).

2026See Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 964 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating that where a lower court has reached the correct result, an appellate court may affirm on any basis). - 33 - J-S09003-26 had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80, 89 (Pa. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 964 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating that where a lower court has reached the correct result, an appellate court may affirm on any basis). - 33 - J-S09003-26 had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80, 89 (Pa. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2026See Robinson, 139 A.3d at 186 .