facts upon claim in Pennsylvania

2026Rather the exception merely requires the petitioner to plead and prove two elements: “1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown and 2) could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Id. at 1272 (internal quotation marks omitted), citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

2026To establish this exception, a petitioner must plead and prove that “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); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270 (Pa. 2007). “[T]he focus of this exception is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Brown, G., 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2026See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3) (providing that a judgment becomes final for purposes of the PCRA at the conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking direct review); Sup. Ct. R. 13(1) (establishing the deadline for filing a writ of certiorari seeking review of a state court judgment as ninety days after a state court of last resort entered an order denying discretionary review). -9- J-S41027-25 that (1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown, and (2) the facts could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Hanson, 296 A.3d 641 , at *3

2026See Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (eliminating any public record presumption with regard to facts contained in a public record for incarcerated individuals, but maintaining the traditional test regarding the timeliness exception for newly-discovered facts). - 13 - J-A29042-25 requirement when he did not raise a claim related to the criminal conviction of his trial judge until five and one-half years after his sentencing; our Court found that Appellant had not acted with due diligence in discovering the facts upon which his claim was predicated).

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 (

2023See, e.g., ____________________________________________ 9 To the extent Appellant focuses on the newspaper article as opposed to the facts upon which his claim is predicated, we note that the “focus of the exception is on [the] newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (emphasis and alteration in original) (citation omitted).

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

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

2026To establish this exception, a petitioner must plead and prove that “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); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270 (Pa. 2007). “[T]he focus of this exception is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Brown, G., 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2025The newly-discovered facts timeliness exception requires Brown to establish: “1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown and 2) could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176-77 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and emphasis omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

2026See PCRA Petition, 3/25/24, at 15-16.14 To establish the newly-discovered fact exception, the petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving “(1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown[;] and (2) they could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

2026To establish the newly-discovered fact exception, the petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving “(1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown[;] and (2) they could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

2020S11044/19 (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 Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). “[T]he time limitations pursuant to . . . the PCRA are jurisdictional.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, [] 737 A.2d 214, 222 ([Pa.] 1999). “[Jurisdictional t

2020A petitioner may only file a PCRA petition beyond one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final if, inter alia, “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)(ii). “[T]he time limitations pursuant to . . . the PCRA are jurisdictional.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, [] 737 A.2d 214, 222 ([Pa.] 1999). “[Jurisdictional time] limitations are mandatory and interpreted literally; -4- J.

2026See Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. 2018) (holding that, for the government interference exception to apply, a petitioner “is required to show that but for the interference of a government actor he could not have filed his claim earlier”); see also -5- J-S03045-26 Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that the exception requires the petitioner to plead that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were not previously known to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained through due diligence).

2025See Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that the exception requires the petitioner to plead that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were not previously known to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained through due diligence).

2021The OISA 16 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245, 1248 (Pa. 2013); Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 523 (Pa. 2006); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473, 478 (Pa. 2003); Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 , 588 n.4 (Pa. 2000). [J-61-2020] [OISA: Mundy, J.] - 16 observes that Fears did not “explain in his petition how or when he became aware of” the information contained in the December 8, 2015 complaint, or how he was able to discover that obscure filing but none of the earlier public reporting on the subject.

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

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,

2024To succeed in raising that exception, a petitioner must establish that: (1) “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown” and (2) the facts “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” Id. at § 9545(b)(1)(ii). “[T]he due diligence inquiry is fact-sensitive and dependent upon the circumstances presented.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1070 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc).

2024To succeed in raising that exception, a petitioner must establish that: (1) “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown” and (2) the facts “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” Id. at § 9545(b)(1)(ii). “[T]he due diligence inquiry is fact-sensitive and dependent upon the - 12 - J-S18030-24 circumstances presented.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1070 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc).

2022Moreover, a plain-reading of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) suggests a limiting-approach whereby only those facts which are relied upon to establish the newly-discovered facts exception to the jurisdictional time-bar may then be proffered in support of after-discovered evidence claims. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (stating, 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 (emphasis added)); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 , 507 n.14 (Pa. Super. 2016) (suggesting that, a PCRA court has jurisdic

2020To prove the newly-discovered facts exception at section 9545(b)(1)(ii), “the petitioner must establish that the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491, 500 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

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

2018Our Supreme Court has made clear, however, that “a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not (Footnote Continued) _______________________ (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 Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii).

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

2025See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). -6- J-S41036-24 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 Pennsylvania after the time period provided in

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

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

2020Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment is final unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time limitation for filing the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. sections 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.6 A PCRA petition invoking one of these ____________________________________________ 6 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 p

2022In this limited circumstance, where previous PCRA counsel’s ineffective assistance constituted a “fact” for purposes of the newly-discovered fact exception, the Bennett Court explained, the petitioner was still required to “prove that the facts were ‘unknown’ to him and that he could not uncover them with the exercise of ‘due diligence’.” Id. at 1274 ; see also Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 984 (Pa. 2011) (stating, “when a petitioner claims he was abandoned on appeal by former counsel, he may successfully invoke [the newly-discovered facts exception pursuant to Section] 9545(b)(1)(ii) if

2021The exception at issue herein, [42 Pa.C.S.A § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)], states in relevant part: (b) Time for filing petition.— (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; .... (2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within sixty da

2022Under this exception, the time-bar will not preclude relief if “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ____________________________________________ 1 “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). “[Our] scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favo

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

2026See Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. 2018) (holding that, for the government interference exception to apply, a petitioner “is required to show that but for the interference of a government actor he could not have filed his claim earlier”); see also -5- J-S03045-26 Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that the exception requires the petitioner to plead that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were not previously known to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained through due diligence).

2026This exception permits an otherwise untimely PCRA petition to be filed if the petitioner pleads and proves that “(1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown[;] and (2) they could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. 2018) (citation and brackets omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (same).

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

2025To succeed in raising that exception, a petitioner must establish that: (1) “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown,” and (2) the facts “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” Id. at § 9545(b)(1)(ii). “[T]he due diligence inquiry is fact-sensitive and dependent upon the circumstances presented.” Commonwealth v. Shiloh, 170 A.3d 553, 558 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

2025To succeed in raising that exception, a petitioner must establish that: (1) “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown,” and (2) the facts “could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). “[T]he due diligence inquiry is fact-sensitive and dependent upon the circumstances presented.” Commonwealth v. Shiloh, 170 A.3d 553, 558 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

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

2022Spotz, 171 A.3d at 676 . “[T]he newly-discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in [42 Pa.C.S.A. § ]9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after-discovered evidence basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9543(a)(2)[(vi)].” Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017). - 35 - J-A25019-20 To satisfy the newly-discovered facts exception, Appellant needed to demonstrate that the facts upon which his claim for relief was predicated, were unknown and that they could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

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

2026As this Court had made clear, “although Small eliminates the public record presumption, it does not abrogate the requirement that petitioners perform due diligence to discover the facts upon which their claim is predicated.” Commonwealth v. Myers, 303 A.3d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 2023).

2026To overcome the PCRA’s time bar under the newly discovered facts exception, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner must prove that “(1) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown, and (2) these unknown facts could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Myers, 303 A.3d 118, 121 (Pa. Super. 2023).

2026As the Supreme Court has explained, a Brady violation may constitute governmental interference; however, an appellant may not “begin with a discussion of the merits of a Brady claim; rather [he] must begin with a discussion of why the instant petition was timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008). -8- J-S03012-26 To satisfy the newly discovered facts exception, a petitioner must plead and prove “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

2018See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008) (consideration of Brady1 claim separate from consideration of its timeliness). ____________________________________________ 1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). -2- J-S11024-18 At issue here is the timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), which requires a petitioner to plead and prove two components: 1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown, and (2) these unknown facts could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.