prisoner mailbox rule in Pennsylvania

2026See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (noting that, where facts concerning timeliness are in dispute when the defendant invokes the prisoner mailbox rule, a remand for an evidentiary hearing may be warranted).

2026Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (instructing that to avail themselves of the “prisoner mailbox rule,” a pro se prisoner bears the burden to prove the date they delivered to prison authorities a document for filing); see Commonwealth v. Stockton, 344 A.3d 1067 , No. 1509 MDA 2024 at *3, fn 2. (non-precedential decision) -3- J-S09036-26 (Pa. Super. filed July 1, 2025) (deciding that burden of proof required by Rule 121(f) and Jones in order to avail oneself of the prisoner mailbox rule was not met by petitioner Stockton, whose “handwritten notation of [the] date on the petiti

2026Under the prisoner mailbox rule, however, “a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). “[A]ny reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits the document with prison authorities” is acceptable to satisfy this rule.

2026Rule 907(1) notice to dismiss and to rule dismissal without reply by the state in violation of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, and an unbiased judiciary under the Article III and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? ____________________________________________ 108(a)(1) (stating that “in computing any period of time under these rules involving the date of entry of an order by a court or other government unit, the day of entry shall be the day the clerk of the court or the government unit mails or delivers copies of the order to the parties”);

2026The Superior Court has explained that, as the prisoner mailbox rule expressly addresses when a document is “filed[,”] “the document must at least be addressed to a proper filing office within the Unified Judicial System in order to complete the filing.” Commonwealth v. Crawford, 17 A.3d 1279, 1282 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2025See Commonwealth v. Crawford, 17 A.3d 1279 (Pa.Super. 2011) (explaining that under “prisoner mailbox rule,” we deem pro se document filed on date it is placed in hands of prison authorities for mailing). 3 We use June 14, 2024 as the operative filing date pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule.

2023See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, we deem a document filed on the day it is placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing.”).

2022See Commonwealth -3- J-S17009-22 v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa.Super. 2007) (declining to quash appeal as untimely where the timing of the receipt of a notice of appeal, with an intervening weekend, rendered it likely that the appeal was timely filed pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule); see also Romagnolo, supra at *1 n.1 (“[W]e decline to quash the appeal as untimely, as it is likely that Appellant placed his notice of appeal in the hands of prison authorities on or before [the deadline].”).

2025Hammond’s first assertion is addressed by the prisoner mailbox rule, which establishes that “a legal document is deemed ‘filed’ on the date it is delivered to the proper prison authority or deposited in the prison mailbox.” Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091, 1097 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).4 Even giving Hammond the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule, his appeal is still untimely.

2025“Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se appeal is deemed filed at the time it is given to prison officials or put in the prison mailbox.” Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091, 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

2025See Commonwealth v. DiClaudio, 210 A.3d 1070, 1074 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applying the prisoner mailbox rule).

2024However, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, “a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. DiClaudio, 210 A.3d 1070, 1074 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.A.P. 121(f) (“A pro se filing submitted by a person incarcerated in a correctional facility is deemed filed as of the date of the prison postmark or the date the filing was delivered to the prison authorities for purposes of mailing as documented by a properly executed prisoner cash slip or other reasonably verifiable evidence.”).

2026Rule 121(f) adopts the prisoner mailbox rule set forth in Smith v. Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 278, 281 (Pa. 1996).

2022See Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 278, 281 (Pa. 1996) (stating that the prisoner mailbox rule “applies only to pro se petitioners who are incarcerated”). -3- J-A25043-21 (a) the right to appeal and the time limits within which the appeal must be filed; (b) the right to assistance of counsel in the preparation of the appeal; (c) the rights, if the defendant is indigent, to appeal in forma pauperis and to proceed with assigned counsel as provided in Rule 122; and (d) the qualified right to bail under Rule 521(B).

2026See also Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170, 176 (Pa.Super. 2001) (clarifying that “[t]o avail himself of the prisoner mailbox rule, . . . an incarcerated litigant must supply sufficient proof of the date of mailing”). -4- J-S46015-25 Appellant presents a two-page brief raising five claims.

2023See Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170, 176 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discussing the prisoner mailbox rule and applying the rule to a civil matter).

2022See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 911 A.2d 942 , 944 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating, “[p]ursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a document is deemed filed when placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing” (citation omitted and formatting altered)). -4- J-S33019-21 2.

2019See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 911 A.2d 942 , 944 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (noting that pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a document is deemed filed when placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing).

2024See Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 1998) (holding that the prisoner mailbox rule is applicable to petitions filed pursuant to the PCRA).

2024E-F; see also Little, 716 A.2d at 1289 (discussing the prisoner mailbox rule).

2025See Commonwealth v. Castro, 766 A.2d 1283, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2001) (explaining that the prisoner mailbox rule extends to PCRA proceedings and provides that the date of delivery of the mailing by the defendant to the proper prison authority or to a prison mailbox is considered the date of filing of the petition); see also Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (providing that a notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken). 4 Our review of the Rule 1925(b) order indicates that the order appears to be compliant with the content requirements of Rule 1925(b)

2023See Commonwealth v. Castro, 766 A.2d 1283, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2001) (holding that the prisoner mailbox rule provides that the date of delivery of a court filing by the defendant or PCRA petitioner to the proper prison authority or to a prison mailbox is considered the date of filing). -3- J-S30039-23 his right to appeal the dismissal of his second PCRA petition, given his claim that he did not receive a copy of the March 1, 2022 dismissal order.

2026See Pa.R.A.P. 121(f) (codifying the prisoner mailbox rule); Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 78 (Pa. Super. 1998) (explaining that under the prisoner mailbox rule a pro se notice of appeal is deemed filed as of the date it is deposited in the prison mail system).

2025Herein, Appellant raises one issue for our review: Did the PCRA court err in its failure to grant/conduct an evidentiary hearing where there is a consitutional [sic] need to extend the records for an adequate appellate evaluation of one ____________________________________________ submitted by a person incarcerated in a correctional facility is deemed filed as of the date of the prison postmark or the date the filing was delivered to the prison authorities for purposes of mailing as documented by a properly executed prisoner cash slip or other reasonably verifiable evidence.”); Commonwealth v.

2021Although February 19, 2021, is more than 20 days after the court’s Rule 907 notice, the post-marked envelope included with the Appellant’s response indicates it was mailed on February 14, 2021. “[U]nder the prisoner mailbox rule, we deem a pro se document filed on the date it is placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 , 234 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

2019“Under the prisoner mailbox rule, we deem a pro se document filed on the date it is placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 , 234 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

2022See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 425-26 (Pa. 1997) (“Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se [notice of] appeal is deemed filed at the time it is given to prison officials or put in the prison mailbox.”); see also Sweesy v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 955 A.2d 501, 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (holding court needs “reasonably verifiable evidence” of the date an inmate deposits his or her notice of appeal, including, but not limited to, “certificates of mailing, cash slips [given by prison authorities that note the deduction from an inmate’s account for the mailing to the prothono

2022See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 425-26 (Pa. 1997) (“Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se [notice of] appeal is deemed filed at the time it is given to prison officials or put in the prison mailbox.”); see also Sweesy v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 955 A.2d 501, 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (holding court needs “reasonably verifiable evidence” of the date an inmate deposits his or her notice of appeal, including, but not limited to, “certificates of mailing, cash slips [given by prison authorities that note the deduction from an inmate’s account for the mailing to the prothono

2025See Commonwealth v. Milner, 745 A.2d 43 (Pa. Super. 1999) (unpublished memorandum at 3-4) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness of Appellant’s PCRA petition under the “prisoner mailbox rule”); see also Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 266 A.3d 1128 , 1132 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021) (pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se filing “is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” (citation omitted)); Pa.R.A.P. 121(f) (same).

2025See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 266 A.3d 1128 , 1132 n.8 (Pa.Super. 2021) (“The prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” (citation omitted)). 2 In relevant part, this section states: “[T]he term ‘prior offense’ as used in this chapter shall mean . . . acceptance of [ARD] or other form of preliminary disposition before the sentencing on the present violation for” any offense relating to DUI.

2021“At the heart of the ‘prisoner mailbox rule’ are the constitutional notions of due process and fundamental fairness.” Id. (quoting Pettibone v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 782 A.2d 605, 608 (Pa. 2001)).

2020Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s appeal is deemed “filed when such appeal is deposited with prison officials or placed in the prison mailbox.” Pettibone v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 782 A.2d 605, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (citing Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1996)).

2026Nevertheless, for the purposes of our analysis, we refer to them as the March 28, 2025 PCRA petition and the September 2024 petition, respectively. 3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -3- J-S04007-26 PCRA court dismissed Jackson’s PCRA petition after concluding that it was untimely filed and the prisoner mailbox rule did not apply to Jackson’s September 2024 petition.

2025See Commonwealth v. Jones, 549 Pa. 58 , 700 A.2d 423 (1997) (explaining the prisoner mailbox rule). 4 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

2025In determining the date of filing pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, the appellate courts are “inclined to accept any reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits the appeal with prison authorities.” Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2019In Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2002), this Court held that Perez satisfied the prisoner mailbox rule for an appeal due on July 20, 2001, but not docketed until July 26, 2001, where he dated his notice of appeal July 15, 2001, and he submitted a copy of a certified mail receipt demonstrating that it was sent to the clerk of courts on July 16, 2001.

2022See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 192 A.3d 1149 , 1152 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a pro se filing by a prisoner is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing).

2019See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Johnson, 192 A.3d 1149 , 1152 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2018) (explaining that, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, “a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing”). -2- J-S48005-19 Commonwealth v. Rizvi, 166 A.3d 344, 347 (Pa.Super. 2017).

2022See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477, n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011). -3- J-S24022-22 [5.] Should [Wilkerson]’s guilty plea be invalidated as it was not entered into in a knowing and intelligent manner?

2017Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 , 479 1 While Appellant’s notice of appeal was not docketed until June 28, 2016, more than thirty days after the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition, the court found the appeal was timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule.

2019Even if we give Appellant the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule as to the late filing of his concise statement, see Commonwealth v. (Footnote Continued) _______________________ (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: *** (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[.] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). 3 The PCRA court ame

2019See Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266 , 268 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“Under the ‘Prisoner Mailbox Rule’ a document is deemed filed when placed in the hands of prison authorities for mailing.”). 2 Although the notice of appeal was docketed on December 18, 2018, the certified record contains an envelope with a postage time-stamp dated December 2, 2018.

2021See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 78 (Pa. Super. 1998) (stating that the prisoner mailbox rule means “that, for prisoners proceeding pro se, a notice is deemed filed as of the date it is deposited in the prison mail system”). 5 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). -3- J-A20030-21 proceed in this appeal pro se, or whether he required counsel for the appeal.” PCRA Court Opinion, 4/30/21, at 2.

2019The prisoner mailbox rule applies here because Appellant dismissed his attorney several days before taking his appeal. 3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). -7- J-S39028-19 ruling in Commonwealth v. Young, 767 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2001), where Young controls and effectively overruled Penrose based on applicable legal principles, updated legal developments, and an irrelevant procedural distinction; further, should this Court, en banc, expressly overrule Penrose as a matter of substantial public importance?

2021See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Betts, 240 A.3d 616 , 620 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2020) (explaining that, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, “submissions from an incarcerated litigant are deemed to be filed when deposited into the prison mailing system, or handed over to prison officials for mailing”). 2 The Commonwealth suggests dismissal of the appeal at 1435 MDA 2020 on the basis that Appellant is not an aggrieved party.

2021See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Betts, 240 A.3d 616 , 620 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2020) (explaining that, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, “submissions from an incarcerated litigant are deemed to be filed when deposited into the prison mailing system, or handed over to prison officials for mailing”). -2- J-S28012-21 which it reviewed in making its determination.

2001Although we hold that the prisoner mailbox rule does apply in the present case, we find that Appellant is still entitled to no relief. ¶ 8 Our Commonwealth’s “prisoner mailbox rule” evolved from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

2001Although we hold that the prisoner mailbox rule does apply in the present case, we find that Appellant is still entitled to no relief. ¶ 8 Our Commonwealth’s “prisoner mailbox rule” evolved from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

2026See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 623 (Pa. Super. 2016) (explaining general rule that hybrid representation is not permitted); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (providing pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on date he delivers to prison authorities for mailing pursuant to “prisoner mailbox rule”). -3- J-S12032-26 Court as such.

2024See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (applying “the prisoner mailbox rule to all appeals by pro se prisoners”); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016) (requiring a court to docket a pro se notice of appeal from a defendant who has an attorney).

2019See, Commonwealth v. Fransen, 986 A.2d 154 , 156 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2009); Commonwealth v. -3- J-S44006-19 Castro, 766 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2001); Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1998).

2017See Commonwealth v. Fransen, 986 A.2d 154 , 156 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2009); Commonwealth v. Castro, 766 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2001); Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1998). ______________________________________________ PCRA Court Notice of Intent to Dismiss Without a Hearing Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, 1/26/2016, at 1–2.

2026Nevertheless, for the purposes of our analysis, we refer to them as the March 28, 2025 PCRA petition and the September 2024 petition, respectively. 3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -3- J-S04007-26 PCRA court dismissed Jackson’s PCRA petition after concluding that it was untimely filed and the prisoner mailbox rule did not apply to Jackson’s September 2024 petition.

2025See Commonwealth v. Jones, 549 Pa. 58 , 700 A.2d 423 (1997) (explaining the prisoner mailbox rule). 4 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

2018See Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 1998) (holding that the prisoner mailbox rule applies to PCRA petitions). 3 Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence must be presented to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt). -2- J-S83015-17 We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its Order is otherwise free of legal error.

2017See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa.Super. 2007) (discussing the prisoner mailbox rule). -2- J-S24032-17 Further, he indicated that, to the extent the document constituted a second PCRA petition, he was entitled to the timeliness exception set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016).

2023See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa.Super. 2007) (finding notice of appeal timely under prisoner mailbox rule where notice was dated two days before filing deadline and received by court on first business day following deadline); Commonwealth v. Saunders, 946 A.2d 776 , 780 n.7 (Pa.Super. 2008) (finding Rule 1925(b) statement timely under prisoner mailbox rule based on date of proof of service). 3 The court also concluded that the petition did not state grounds for relief because the affidavit did not constitute after-discovered evidence.

2019See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 946 A.2d 776 , 780 n.7 (Pa.Super. 2008) (accepting under the prisoner mailbox rule date on proof of service as the date on which 1925(b) statement was filed).

2021This appeal followed.10 Appellant raises the following issues for our review: [1.] Whether the PCRA court erred in finding that [Appellant’s requested sentencing modification] was not timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule where he placed documents into [a] prison authorit[y’s] hands, which would have been construed as a PCRA petition, prior to the one-year [jurisdictional] time[-]bar elapsing? [2.] Whether the PCRA court erred in finding that [Appellant’s requested sentencing modification] was not timely filed under the newly-discovered fact exception [to the PCRA jurisdictional time-ba

2019The PCRA court offered no discussion as to why it denied Appellant’s petition. ____________________________________________ 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). -4- J-S30007-18 On August 22, 2018, this Court issued a memorandum decision remanding Appellant’s case for the PCRA court to conduct a hearing to determine if Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal and Rule 1925(b) statement were timely-filed pursuant to the ‘prisoner mailbox rule.’ 3 On August 30, 2018, the PCRA court entered an order stating that those documents were timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule, and that no hearing