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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 denied his second petition 

filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. Appellant pled guilty to numerous counts of burglary and corruption 

of minors offenses at two docket numbers on August 14, 2006. On October 

2, 2006, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 9-18 years’ 

incarceration. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct 

appeal. On September 11, 2009, the court received from 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 counsel, pursuant to 
J-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 November 16, 2009, after 

proper notice per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. This Court affirmed 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 treated Appellant’s pro 

se motions as a second PCRA petition. Following proper notice 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 requisite. 

Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008), cert. 

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (2009). The 

amended PCRA, effective January 16, 1996, requires that a PCRA petition, 

including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of 

the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.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 United 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 Appellant’s second 
J-S58031-14 

- 3 - 

PCRA petition, which was over 7 years after his judgment of sentence 

became final.1

 Appellant’s second petition neither alleges nor proves any 

cognizable exception to the PCRA timeliness requirements. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Therefore, the court properly 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 about 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 grace period provided in 

the amended PCRA for first-time petitioners, because this petition is 

Appellant’s second petition under the statute.