jurisdictional time bar in Pennsylvania

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

2019Nevertheless, the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar can be overcome by satisfying one of the three statutory exceptions codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).3 Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa. 2017).

2025See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits because a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not the type of after-discovered evidence encompassed by the timeliness exception); see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. 2000) (holding that couching argument in terms of ineffectiveness cannot save a petition that does not fall into an exception to the jurisdictional time bar).

2025See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits because a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not the type of after-discovered evidence encompassed by the timeliness exception); see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. 2000) (holding that couching argument in terms of ineffectiveness cannot save a petition that does not fall into an exception to the jurisdictional time bar).

2026The PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar “is constitutionally valid.” Commonwealth v. Cruz, 852 A.2d 287, 292 (Pa. 2004).

2026The PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar “is constitutionally valid.” Commonwealth v. Cruz, 852 A.2d 287, 292 (Pa. 2004).

2025See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits because a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not the type of after-discovered evidence encompassed by the timeliness exception); see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. 2000) (holding that couching argument in terms of ineffectiveness cannot save a petition that does not fall into an exception to the jurisdictional time bar).

2025See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits because a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not the type of after-discovered evidence encompassed by the timeliness exception); see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 589 (Pa. 2000) (holding that couching argument in terms of ineffectiveness cannot save a petition that does not fall into an exception to the jurisdictional time bar).

2021See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 182 (Pa. 2016) (Table) (“couching post-conviction issues in terms of ineffectiveness cannot -9- J-A03038-21 ‘save’ an untimely filed PCRA petition that does not fall into any of the exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar”).

2021Prothonotary Date: 01/25/2021 ____________________________________________ 4 To the extent Appellant presents various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his guilty plea, we note “the well- settled proposition that couching post-conviction issues in terms of ineffectiveness cannot ‘save’ an untimely filed PCRA petition that does not fall into any of the exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 635 Pa. 592 , 139 A.3d 178, 182 (2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780, 785 (2000) (holding th

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 1 “[A]n allegation of a structural error does not, in and of itself, surmount the jurisdictional time bar of Section 9545(b).” Commonwealth v. Baroni, 573 Pa. 589 , 593, 827 A.2d 419 , 422 (2003). 2The Supreme Court decided McCoy on May 14, 2018, so Appellant complied with the statutory time allowed under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -3- J-S68031-19 Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 614 Pa. 710 , 38 A.3d 823 (2012) (holding application of criminal defendant’s long-standing constitutional right to effectiv

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 1 “[A]n allegation of a structural error does not, in and of itself, surmount the jurisdictional time bar of Section 9545(b).” Commonwealth v. Baroni, 573 Pa. 589 , 593, 827 A.2d 419 , 422 (2003). 2The Supreme Court decided McCoy on May 14, 2018, so Appellant complied with the statutory time allowed under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). -3- J-S68031-19 Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 614 Pa. 710 , 38 A.3d 823 (2012) (holding application of criminal defendant’s long-standing constitutional right to effectiv

2024See Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2019) (reiterating that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the denial of untimely PCRA petitions without a petitioner pleading and proving an exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar); see also Commonwealth v. Jarmon, 2020 WL 5513561 at *2 n.2 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 14, 2020) (unpublished mem.) (concluding that the interests of justice did not require the appointment of counsel for the litigation of an untimely PCRA petition where an evidentiary hearing is not required); Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating

2024For these reasons, we discern no error of law in the PCRA court’s conclusions that Appellant has failed to overcome the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar, and we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA - 10 - J-S33035-24 petition as untimely.5 See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043 ; see also Ballance, 203 A.3d at 1031 .

2023These pronouncements in Bradley are in line with our Supreme Court’s oft-repeated pronouncement on the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar: “the PCRA confers no authority upon this Court to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA time-bar in addition to those exceptions expressly delineated in the -6- J-S45020-22 Act.” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Eller, 807 A.2d 38, 845 (Pa. 2002)).

2015Thus, neither habeas review nor an equitable exception to the jurisdictional time bar is available to Appellant. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542; Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011).

2021Moreover, to the extent Appellant contends his sentence is illegal, we recognize that “while legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (1999) (citation omitted). -7-

2021Moreover, to the extent Appellant contends his sentence is illegal, we recognize that “while legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must still satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (1999) (citation omitted). -7-

2018See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007) (“[J]urisdictional time limits go to a court’s right or competency to adjudicate a controversy.”). ____________________________________________ 5 The PCRA court properly addressed Appellant’s final issue that PCRA counsel improperly filed a petition pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley, PCRA Court Opinion, 4/21/17, at 6–7, nor does the claim “assert or prove any facts that would give rise to the exceptions to the jurisdictional time bar of the PCRA.” Id. at 6. -7- J-S70023-17 Order affirmed.

2016See Commonwealth v. Valentine, 928 A.2d 346, 349 (Pa. Super. 2007). -5- J-S74032-16 There are three exceptions to this jurisdictional 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 tha

2025See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043 ; see also Ballance, 203 A.3d at 1031 .

2024For these reasons, we discern no error of law in the PCRA court’s conclusions that Appellant has failed to overcome the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar, and we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA - 10 - J-S33035-24 petition as untimely.5 See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043 ; see also Ballance, 203 A.3d at 1031 .

2021Before considering the merits of Frazier’s claim, we must determine whether his petition is timely in accordance with the PCRA’s jurisdictional time- bar.7 “A PCRA petition, including a second and subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final.” Commonwealth v. Graves, 197 A.3d 1182, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment becomes 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

2021See In re McElhatton, 729 A.2d 163, 165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (““A failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 904 will not result in a dismissal of the (Footnote Continued Next Page) -3- J-S25039-21 Before considering the merits of Simmons’s PCRA petition, we must first determine whether his petition is timely under the PCRA's jurisdictional time- bar.2 “A PCRA petition, including a second and subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final.” Commonwealth v. Graves, 197 A.3d 1182, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. 9545(b)(1)

2020See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1127 (Pa. 2005) (“It is well settled that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdictional timeliness requirements of the PCRA.”); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 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.”).

2017See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1127 (Pa. 2005).

2020Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407, 412 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 911 A.2d (Pa. 2006).

2020Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407, 412 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 911 A.2d (Pa. 2006).

2017Majority Opinion at 1193-94 (citing, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 483 Pa. 29 , 394 A.2d 522 , 524 n.2, 525 (1978) (determining question of final order implicates jurisdiction, and finding no final order warranted quashal of appeal); Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604 , 741 A.2d 1258, 1261-62 (1999) (addressing timeliness of PCRA petition sua sponte, and, as no claims satisfied exceptions to the jurisdictional time bar, affirmed denial of petition); Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich, 525 Pa. 118 , 577 A.2d 881, 886 (1990) (two-Justice Court) (finding-appeal period goes to “jurisdiction to hea

2017Majority Opinion at 1193-94 (citing, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 483 Pa. 29 , 394 A.2d 522 , 524 n.2, 525 (1978) (determining question of final order implicates jurisdiction, and finding no final order warranted quashal of appeal); Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604 , 741 A.2d 1258, 1261-62 (1999) (addressing timeliness of PCRA petition sua sponte, and, as no claims satisfied exceptions to the jurisdictional time bar, affirmed denial of petition); Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich, 525 Pa. 118 , 577 A.2d 881, 886 (1990) (two-Justice Court) (finding-appeal period goes to “jurisdiction to hea

2017Majority Opinion at 1193-94 (citing, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 483 Pa. 29 , 394 A.2d 522 , 524 n.2, 525 (1978) (determining question of final order implicates jurisdiction, and finding no final order warranted quashal of appeal); Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604 , 741 A.2d 1258, 1261-62 (1999) (addressing timeliness of PCRA petition sua sponte, and, as no claims satisfied exceptions to the jurisdictional time bar, affirmed denial of petition); Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich, 525 Pa. 118 , 577 A.2d 881, 886 (1990) (two-Justice Court) (finding-appeal period goes to “jurisdiction to hea

2017Majority Opinion at 1193-94 (citing, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saunders, 483 Pa. 29 , 394 A.2d 522 , 524 n.2, 525 (1978) (determining question of final order implicates jurisdiction, and finding no final order warranted quashal of appeal); Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604 , 741 A.2d 1258, 1261-62 (1999) (addressing timeliness of PCRA petition sua sponte, and, as no claims satisfied exceptions to the jurisdictional time bar, affirmed denial of petition); Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich, 525 Pa. 118 , 577 A.2d 881, 886 (1990) (two-Justice Court) (finding-appeal period goes to “jurisdiction to hea

2025The Commonwealth filed its answer to the amended petition on February 21, 2024, arguing that the supplemental ____________________________________________ 2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1998); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 3 On December 6, 2023, Appellant also filed a “judicial notice petition,” requesting that the court take notice of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as well as certain caselaw Appellant deemed relevant. -2- J-S21019-25 amended petition is untimely and none of the claims raised overcome the PCRA’s jurisd

2025The Commonwealth filed its answer to the amended petition on February 21, 2024, arguing that the supplemental ____________________________________________ 2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1998); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 3 On December 6, 2023, Appellant also filed a “judicial notice petition,” requesting that the court take notice of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as well as certain caselaw Appellant deemed relevant. -2- J-S21019-25 amended petition is untimely and none of the claims raised overcome the PCRA’s jurisd

2023A ____________________________________________ 2 “This Court has previously held that a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not qualify as one of the statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.” Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350 , 356 (Pa.Super. 2020) (en banc), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 251 A.3d 350 (2020). -3- J-A10028-23 PCRA petition shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

2023Notably, this Court has observed that “a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not qualify as one of the statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar.” Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350 , 356 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc). -8- J-S32013-23 C.

2020See Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277, 1285 (Pa. 2016); Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 589-90 (Pa. 2000) (couching an argument in terms of ineffectiveness cannot save a petition that does not fall into an exception to the jurisdictional time bar).

2020For the reasons discussed infra, even if counsel had pled ineffective assistance of counsel specifically as an exception to the jurisdictional time- bar, we would conclude that the argument was meritless. 3 When reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition, we consider “whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 , 1283–1284 (Pa. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025Further, although “we need not find a ‘direct connection’ between the newly-discovered facts and the claims asserted by a petitioner, the statutory language requires there be some relationship between the two.” Commonwealth v. Shannon, 184 A.3d 1010, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2025To establish a Brady violation, a defendant is required to demonstrate that exculpatory or impeaching evidence, favorable to the defense, was suppressed by the prosecution, to the prejudice of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61, 75 (Pa. 2009) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

2025See Commonwealth v. Parker, 249 A.3d 590, 595 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“[A]s an appellate court, we may affirm on any legal basis supported by the certified record.”).

2025See generally Appellant’s Brief at 30- 40. -7- J-S05020-25 the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the PCRA court proceeding.” Id.