J-S58031-14

_________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O. P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JAMES LYLE ISENHART Appellant No. 359 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 20, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0001646-2006; CP-25-CR-0001647-2006; CP-25-CR-0001649-2006

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J .* JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 Appellant, James Lyle Isenhart, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denie d his second petition filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), a t 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541- 9546. Appellant pled guilty to numerous counts of bu rglary and corruption of minors offenses at two docket numbers on August 14, 2 006. On October 2, 2006, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 9-18 years’ incarceration. Appellant did not file post-sentence mot ions or a direct appeal. On September 11, 2009, the court received f rom Appellant a pro se petition for appointment of counsel and habeas corpus relief, which the court treated as a first PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel, who filed a “no-merit” letter and an application to withdraw as co unsel, pursuant toJ-S58031-14

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Turner , 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) ( en banc ). The PCRA court ultimately dismissed the petition on Novembe r 16, 2009, after proper notice per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. This Court affir med on June 8, 2011. See Commonwealth v. Isenhart , 29 A.3d 846 (Pa.Super. 2011). On January 16, 2014, the court received from Appellant 3 pro se motions: a request to file post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc ; a post-sentence motion; and a motion to modify sentence. The court tr eated Appellant’s pro

se motions as a second PCRA petition. Following proper no tice under Rule 907, the PCRA court formally dismissed the petition on February 20, 2014. This pro se appeal followed. The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional re quisite. Commonwealth v. Hackett , 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (20 09). The amended PCRA, effective January 16, 1996, requires th at a PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 P a.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final “at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the Unit ed States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Instantly, on January 16, 2014, the court received Ap pellant’s secondJ-S58031-14

- 3 -

PCRA petition, which was over 7 years after his judgmen t of sentence became final. 1 Appellant’s second petition neither alleges nor prove s any cognizable exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement s. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Therefore, the court proper ly dismissed the current petition as untimely. Accordingly, we affirm. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/19/2014

____________________________________________ 1 Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on or ab out November 1, 2006, upon expiration of the 30-day period in which to file a direct appeal. Further, Appellant is not entitled to the one-year g race period provided in the amended PCRA for first-time petitioners, because th is petition is Appellant’s second petition under the statute.