merits of any claim in Pennsylvania

2021Whether [a petitioner] has carried his burden is a threshold inquiry prior to considering the merits of any claim.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 346 (Pa. 2013).

2018Whether [a petitioner] has carried his burden is a threshold inquiry prior to considering the merits of any claim.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 346 (Pa. 2013) (internal citation omitted).

2026“This timeliness requirement is jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proves that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016).

2026The PCRA’s requirement that a petition be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final “is jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proves that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

2026“Whether a petitioner has carried his burden is a threshold inquiry that must be resolved prior to considering the merits of any claim.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178, 186 (Pa. 2016).

2025“Whether a petitioner has carried his burden is a threshold inquiry that must be resolved prior to considering the merits of any claim.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2008); Commonwealth v. Geer, 936 A.2d 1075 , 1078–1079 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2024See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2008); Commonwealth v. Geer, 936 A.2d 1075 , 1078–1079 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2017“This timeliness requirement is jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proves that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 617 Pa. 587 , 54 A.3d 14, 16 (2012)).

2017“This timeliness requirement is jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proves that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa. 2012)).

2021See Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 226 (Pa. 2016) (“a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proved that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies”); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1267-68 (Pa. 2008) (“The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed; courts may not address the merits of the issues raised in a petition if it is not timely filed.”).

2020Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (quotation and citation omitted); see Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (“a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proves that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies”); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1267-68 (Pa. 2008) (“The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed; courts

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).

2018The only elements required for the newly discovered facts exception to apply are that (1) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown and (2) these facts could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382 , 930 A.2d 1264 , 1272 (2007)).

2018The only elements required for the newly discovered facts exception to apply are that (1) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown and (2) these facts could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) ; Commonwealth v. Bennett , 593 Pa. 382 , 930 A.2d 1264 1272 (2007) ).

2026See Albrecht, 994 ____________________________________________ 8 We reiterate that pursuant to the case law in effect in 2015, at the time James filed and litigated his first PCRA petition, James had the opportunity to (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 10 - J-S16043-26 A.2d at 1093; see also Ford, 44 A.3d at 1194 .

2025See id.

2025“In the PCRA context, statutory jurisdiction cannot be conferred by silence, agreement or neglect.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Commonwealth v. Balance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 216 A.3d 1044 (Pa. 2019)).

2025“In the PCRA context, statutory jurisdiction cannot be conferred by silence, agreement or neglect.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Commonwealth v. Balance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 216 A.3d 1044 (Pa. 2019)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Solomon, 247 A.3d 1163 , 1167 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). -5- J-S40023-25 When reviewing the legality of a [restitution] sentence, we apply a plenary scope and de novo standard of review.

2021See Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258, 1261 (Pa. 1999).

2020For that reason, we have repeatedly stated that even when the parties or a PCRA court do not address the timeliness of a PCRA petition, “this Court will consider the issue sua sponte, as it is a threshold question implicating our subject matter jurisdiction[.]” Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473, 478 (Pa. 2003).

2020Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (quotation and citation omitted); see Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (“a court may not address the merits of any claim raised unless the petition was timely filed or the petitioner proves that one of the three exceptions to the timeliness requirement applies”); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1267-68 (Pa. 2008) (“The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed; courts

2019See Schmotzer, 831 A.2d at 695 n.2.

2018Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 621 (Pa. 2002).

2018See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245, 1248 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2695 (U.S. 2014).

2018See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245, 1248 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2695 (U.S. 2014).

2017Moreover, as the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118, 121 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2015See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1125-26 (Pa. 2005).

1983What was said by our Supreme Court in Clearfield Cheese *209 Co., Inc. v. United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America, 378 Pa. 144, 149 , 106 A.2d 612, 614-15 (1954) is equally applicable here: [T]be decree is final to the extent that it determines that the defendants have no right to plead any defense to the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

1983What was said by our Supreme Court in Clearfield Cheese *209 Co., Inc. v. United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America, 378 Pa. 144, 149 , 106 A.2d 612, 614-15 (1954) is equally applicable here: [T]be decree is final to the extent that it determines that the defendants have no right to plead any defense to the plaintiff’s claim for damages.