J-S08036-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

v. :

:

JHEN A. SCUTELLA, :

 :

Appellant : No. 1136 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 18, 2015 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, 

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-25-CR-0001324-2004 

BEFORE: STABILE, DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 29, 2016 

 Jhen A. Scutella (“Scutella”) appeals, pro se, from the Order 

dismissing his third Petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-9546. We affirm. 

 In July 2005, Scutella pled guilty to one count of possession with 

intent to deliver a controlled substance.1 On September 7, 2005, the trial 

court sentenced Scutella to 41⁄2 to 10 years in prison. Scutella did not file a 

direct appeal. 

 In May 2015, Scutella, pro se, filed the instant PCRA Petition, his third. 

After issuing a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the PCRA court 

dismissed the Petition in June 2015. Scutella filed a timely Notice of Appeal. 

 On appeal, Scutella raises the following question for review: “Did the 

[PCRA court] err when it determined the sentence imposed did not violate 

 

1

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 
J-S08036-16 

- 2 - 

[Scutella’s] constitutional rights under [a] new rule of law?” Brief for 

Appellant at 4. 

We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA 

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA 

level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court 

and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s 

ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal 

error. 

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations 

omitted). 

 Initially, it appears that Scutella is not currently serving a sentence. 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). Thus, he is ineligible for PCRA relief. See 

id. Even if Scutella were currently serving a sentence, his claim does not 

entitle him to relief under the PCRA. 

 Under the PCRA, any PCRA petition “including a second or subsequent 

petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes 

final[.]” See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis added). Here, Scutella’s 

judgment of sentence became final in August 2005, when the time for 

seeking direct review expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Thus, Scutella had until August 2006 to file a Petition for 

relief under the PCRA. Because Scutella did not file the instant PCRA Petition 

until May 2015, his Petition is facially untimely. 

 However, we may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the petitioner 

can plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Any petition invoking one of these exceptions “shall be 
J-S08036-16 

- 3 - 

filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. 

§ 9545(b)(2); Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1094 (Pa. 

2010). 

 Here, Scutella claims that the United States Supreme Court’s decision 

in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), affords him relief 

under the newly recognized constitutional right exception at 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9545(b)(1)(iii).2 Brief for Appellant at 7, 10, 12-13. 

 Scutella did not file the instant PCRA Petition within sixty days of the 

date the Alleyne decision was filed, as required under the PCRA. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). In any event, this Court has held that the Alleyne

decision is not a sufficient basis to invoke the exception at Section 

9545(b)(1)(iii), as the decision does not apply retroactively. See 

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating 

that “[e]ven assuming that Alleyne did announce a new constitutional right, 

neither our Supreme Court, nor the United States Supreme Court has held 

that Alleyne is to be applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of 

sentence has become final. This is fatal to [a]ppellant’s argument regarding 

 

2

 Scutella states that this Court recognized a new “rule of law” in 

Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that 

Alleyne will be applied to cases pending on direct appeal when Alleyne was 

issued). Brief for Appellant at 10. However, under the PCRA, only the 

United States Supreme Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can 

recognize a new constitutional right and determine whether that right will be 

applied retroactively. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). Because 

Newman interprets the rule set forth in Alleyne, we will interpret Scutella’s 

claim as a challenge to the legality of his sentence under Alleyne. 
J-S08036-16 

- 4 - 

the PCRA time-bar.”); see also Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058, 

1067 (Pa. Super. 2015).3 Thus, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing 

Scutella’s Petition as untimely. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 2/29/2016 

 

3

 While Scutella correctly states that challenges to the legality of the 

sentence are generally non-waivable, such claims “may [only] be 

entertained so long as the reviewing court has jurisdiction.” 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 19-20 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en 

banc) (emphasis added).