J-S57037-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROLANDO BARBON ZURITA

Appellant No. 1181 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered April 13, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at Nos: CP-15-CR-0005791-2004, and 

CP-15-CR-0005792-2004

BEFORE: MUNDY, OTT, and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2015

Appellant, Rolando Barbon Zurita, pro se, appeals from the April 13, 

2015 order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, 

denying as untimely his petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. Upon review, we 

affirm.

The PCRA court summarized the procedural background of the instant 

matter as follows:

On July 25, 2005, [Appellant] entered into an open guilty plea. 

[Appellant] was sentenced on December 2, 2005. [Appellant] 

filed a timely notice of appeal on December 21, 2005. On 

February 16, 2006, the Superior Court entered an order 

dismissing [Appellant]’s appeal. Thereafter, on October 11, 

2006, [Appellant] filed a pro se PCRA Petition alleging ineffective 

assistance of counsel. On October 12, 2006, this court entered 

an order that, among other things, permitted [Appellant] to 
J-S57037-15

- 2 -

proceed in forma pauperis and appointed [Appellant] counsel. 

Subsequently, on November 17, 2006, with the agreement of 

the Commonwealth, [Appellant]’s PCRA Petition, requesting a 

nunc pro tunc appeal to the Superior Court, was granted.

Defense counsel was directed to file a Notice of Appeal within 30 

days of the date of the order. Defense counsel complied and a 

Notice of Appeal was filed on December 13, 2006. On January 

18, 2007, the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued. 

[Appellant] filed a second PCRA Petition on December 3, 2007. 

Following multiple PCRA pleadings and proceedings, an order 

was entered on March 6, 2009 that granted the PCRA, vacated 

the judgment of sentence, allowed [Appellant] to withdraw his 

guilty plea, reinstated the withdrawn charges, restored the 

parties to their respective positions prior to the entry of the open 

plea and listed the case for trial.

On May 15, 2009, [Appellant] entered a negotiated plea 

agreement that contained an agreed upon sentence, which the 

court approved. He received the sentence he negotiated in 

return for the guilty plea and the Commonwealth’s withdrawal of 

a number of counts. 

PCRA Court Order, 3/20/15, at 1-2 n.1. 

On June 11, 2014, Appellant filed the PCRA petition that is the subject 

of this appeal. In his petition, Appellant argued his sentence is illegal under 

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding any fact that 

increases a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury)1

____________________________________________

1

In Alleyne, the Supreme Court of the United States held: 

Any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an 

“element” that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond 

a reasonable doubt. Mandatory minimum sentences increase the 

penalty for a crime. It follows, then, that any fact that increases 

the mandatory minimum is an “element” that must be submitted 

to the jury. 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S57037-15

- 3 -

and that his petition satisfied the PCRA’s timeliness requirements because he 

filed it within sixty days of the clarification of the Alleyne decision provided 

by the Blair County Court of Common Pleas on May 14, 2014. Appellant’s 

Brief at 9-10. On November 14, 2014, the PCRA court dismissed the instant 

petition as untimely. This appeal followed. 

“Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is whether the 

record supports the PCRA court’s determination, and whether the PCRA 

court’s determination is free of legal error. The PCRA court's findings will 

not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified 

record.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 

2013) (citations omitted). 

The PCRA statute directs that any PCRA petition, including a second or 

subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the underlying 

judgment becomes final unless the petitioner proves an exception. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 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 expiration of 

time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Further, any 

petition claiming an exception under § 9545(b)(1) must be filed within 60 

days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2155 (internal citation omitted). 
J-S57037-15

- 4 -

(b)(2). “[T]he PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature 

and, accordingly, a PCRA court cannot hear untimely PCRA petitions.” 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157, 1161 (Pa. 2003) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Rienzi, 827 A.2d 369, 371 (Pa. 2003)). 

Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on June 15, 2009.2 

Appellant had, therefore, one year from June 15, 2009 to file his petition. 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Absent an exception, his petition filed on 

June 11, 2014 is untimely. Appellant asserts his petition is saved from the 

PCRA’s time-bar by Alleyne, as explained by the Court of Common Pleas of 

Blair County on May 14, 2014. Appellant’s Brief at 9-10. We disagree. 

Nowhere did Appellant identify or explain the significance of the Blair County 

Court of Common Pleas decision. Because Appellant fails to elaborate on 

this matter, we can only address whether Alleyne itself provides support for 

the timeliness of his petition. 

____________________________________________

2 The PCRA Court found:

[Appellant] was sentenced on May 15, 2009. He did not file a 

post-sentence motion or an appeal to the Superior Court on that 

second guilty plea and negotiated sentence. Therefore, 

[j]udgment of [s]entence became final on June 15, 2009. 

[Appellant]’s PCRA petition needed to be filed by June 15, 2010 

in order to be timely. [Appellant]’s PCRA petition was filed June 

11, 2014. Accordingly, it is untimely.

PCRA Court Order, 3/20/15, at 2 n.1.
J-S57037-15

- 5 -

Alleyne was decided on June 17, 2013, almost a year before Appellant 

filed the instant petition (June 11, 2014). In Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 

A.2d 513 (Pa. 2007), our Supreme Court explained:

[A]ny petition invoking an exception to the PCRA’s timing 

provisions must be filed within sixty days of the date the claim 

first could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2); 

see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 560 Pa. 487, 494, 746 A.2d 

585, 588 (2000) (a petitioner must plead and prove specific 

facts that demonstrate his claim was raised within the sixty-day 

timeframe). With regard to an after-recognized constitutional 

right, this Court has held that the sixty-day period begins to run 

upon the date of the underlying judicial decision. 

Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 789 A.2d 728 (Pa. Super. 2001).

Id. at 517. 

Appellant clearly failed to file his petition within 60 days of the 

Alleyne decision. “[W]hen a PCRA petition [is] entitled to one of the 

[§ 9545(b)(1)] exceptions, but [is] not filed within 60 days of the date that 

the claim could have been first brought, the PCRA court has no power to 

address the substantive merits of a petitioner’s PCRA claim.” 

Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000). 

To the extent Appellant’s claim can be construed as alleging he learned 

of Alleyne only as a result of the Blair County decision of May 14, 2014, we 

note that ignorance of the law does not toll the jurisdictional timerestrictions of the PCRA. In Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. 

Super. 2012), this Court rejected a similar claim, noting that ignorance of 

the law does not excuse the failure to file a petition within 60 days of the 

date a decision is announced, and stating, “[n]either the court system nor 
J-S57037-15

- 6 -

the correctional system is obliged to educate or update prisoners concerning 

changes in case law.” Id. at 235 (quotation omitted).

Appellant’s petition was untimely filed. Therefore, this Court, as well 

as the PCRA court, lacks jurisdiction to address the substantive issue of 

Appellant’s PCRA claim. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/25/2015