J -S41027-19 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

TAHIJ A. JOHNSON 

Appellant : No. 193 MDA 2019 

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 4, 2019 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-40-CR-0000899-2013 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JULY 31, 2019 

Tahij A. Johnson (Appellant) appeals from the order denying as untimely 

his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. In this appeal, Appellant's court -appointed counsel 

(PCRA Appellate Counsel) filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a no - merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 

1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en 

banc). Because we conclude that PCRA Appellate Counsel fulfilled the 

procedural requirements of Turner/Finley, and his petition is untimely, we 

affirm the PCRA court's order denying Appellant's PCRA petition and grant 

PCRA Appellate Counsel's petition to withdraw. 

On April 9, 2014, a jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault, 

simple assault, and resisting arrest. On May 9, 2014, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to 7 to 14 years of incarceration, followed by 2 years of probation. 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J -S41027-19 

On May 19, 2014, Appellant filed post -sentence motions, which the trial court 

denied on May 29, 2014. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. 

On September 8, 2015, this Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of 

sentence. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 1334 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. 

Sept. 8, 2015) (unpublished memorandum). Approximately 19 months later, 

on April 11, 2017, Appellant filed a "Petition For Leave To File Petition For 

Allowance Of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc[,]" which the Supreme Court denied on 

June 22, 2017. 

On September 17, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The 

PCRA court appointed counsel and on December 3, 2018, Appellant's counsel 

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a no -merit letter pursuant to 

Turner/Finley. On January 4, 2019, the PCRA court held a hearing on 

Appellant's PCRA petition. The same day, the PCRA court issued orders 

denying Appellant's PCRA petition as untimely and granting counsel's motion 

to withdraw. 

On January 31, 2019, the PCRA court appointed PCRA Appellate Counsel 

to represent Appellant for this appeal. The same day, Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal from the order denying his PCRA petition as untimely. Both the 

PCRA court and Appellant have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

On June 3, 2019 PCRA Appellate Counsel filed a petition to withdraw 

with this Court, attaching a Turner/Finley no -merit brief, with notice to 

Appellant that he had the right to proceed pro se or retain private counsel. 

-2 
J -S41027-19 

Accordingly, we must determine if PCRA Counsel has satisfied the 

requirements to be permitted to withdraw from further representation. 

Pursuant to Turner/Finley, an "[i]ndependent review of the record by 

competent counsel is required before withdrawal [on collateral review] is 

permitted." Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875, 876 n.1 (Pa. 2009). In 

Pitts, our Supreme Court explained that independent review requires proof 

of: 

1. A "no merit" letter by PC[R]A counsel detailing the nature and 

extent of his review; 

2. The "no merit" letter by PC[R]A counsel listing each issue the 

petitioner wished to have reviewed; 

3. The PC[R]A counsel's "explanation", in the "no merit" letter, of 

why the petitioner's issues were meritless; 

4. The PC[R]A court conducting its own independent review of the 

record; and 

5. The PC[R]A court agreeing with counsel that the petition was 

meritless. 

Id. (citation and brackets omitted). 

Additionally: 

Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the "no - merit" letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel's petition to withdraw; 

and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the right to proceed pro 

se or by new counsel. 

If counsel fails to satisfy the foregoing technical prerequisites of 

Turner/Finley, the court will not reach the merits of the 

underlying claims but, rather, will merely deny counsel's request 

to withdraw. Upon doing so, the court will then take appropriate 

steps, such as directing counsel to file a proper Turner/Finley 

request or an advocate's brief. 

-3 
J -S41027-19 

However, where counsel submits a petition and no -merit letter 

that do satisfy the technical demands of Turner/Finley, the 

[court] must then conduct its own review of the merits of the case. 

If the court agrees with counsel that the claims are without merit, 

the court will permit counsel to withdraw and deny relief. 

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations 

omitted). 

Here, PCRA Appellate Counsel filed a no -merit brief and petition to 

withdraw that state the nature and extent of his review of the case; he listed 

the issues for which Appellant sought review, explained why and how 

Appellant's claims lack merit, and requested permission to withdraw. See 

Turner/Finley Brief, 6/3/19; Petition to Withdraw as Counsel, 6/3/19. PCRA 

Appellate Counsel also sent Appellant a copy of the no -merit brief, a copy of 

the petition to withdraw, and a statement advising Appellant of the right to 

proceed pro se or by privately retained counsel. Thus, the record reflects that 

PCRA Counsel submitted a petition to withdraw and no -merit brief that satisfy 

the technical demands of Turner/Finley. We now turn to our review of 

Appellant's claims to ascertain whether he is entitled to relief. 

Prior to determining the merits of Appellant's appeal, we must 

determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide his claims. "Pennsylvania 

law makes clear no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition." 

Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

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

-4 
J -S41027-19 

A 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 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). A petitioner must file a petition invoking one of 

these exceptions "within 60 days of the date the claim could have been 

presented." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).1 If a petition is untimely, and the 

petitioner has not pled and proven any exception, "neither this Court nor the 

trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply 

do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.' 

Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006)). 

1 We note that Act 146 of 2018 amended 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(2), effective 

December 24, 2018, and now provides that a PCRA petition invoking a 

timeliness exception must be filed within one year of the date the claim could 

have been presented. This amendment has no effect on our disposition. 

- 5 - 
J -S41027-19 

In this case, the trial court sentenced Appellant on May 9, 2014. This 

Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence on September 8, 2015. See 

Johnson, 1334 MDA 2014. Appellant had 30 days from the date of the 

Superior Court's order, or October 8, 2015, to file a petition for allowance of 

appeal with the Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) ("Except as otherwise 

prescribed by this rule, a petition for allowance of appeal shall be filed with 

the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court within 30 days after the entry of the 

order of the Superior Court . . . sought to be reviewed."). Appellant, however, 

did not file a petition for allowance of appeal until April 11, 2017, well after 

the 30 -day period for filing a petition for allowance of appeal. Thus, 

notwithstanding his untimely filed "Petition For Leave To File Petition For 

Allowance Of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc[,]" Appellant's judgment of sentence 

became final on October 8, 2015. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3) (stating 

that a judgment of sentence 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"). As explained above, Appellant had one year - until 

Monday, October 10, 20162 - to file a timely PCRA petition. Accordingly, 

Appellant's PCRA petition, which he filed on September 17, 2018, is untimely, 

2 October 8, 2016 was a Saturday. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 ("Whenever the 

last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, . . . such day 

shall be omitted from the computation."). 

- 6 - 
J -S41027-19 

and we lack jurisdiction to decide Appellant's appeal unless he pled and proved 

one of the three timeliness exceptions of section 9545(b)(1). See 

Derrickson, 923 A.2d at 468. 

Appellant did not attempt to plead or prove any of the timeliness 

exceptions of Section 9545(b)(1) in his PCRA petition. See PCRA Petition, 

9/17/18. As Appellant has failed to plead and prove an exception under 

section 9545(b)(1), we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of his 

appeal. See id. 

For these reasons, we agree with the PCRA court and PCRA Appellate 

Counsel that there are no meritorious issues that Appellant could pursue on 

collateral review, and affirm the order dismissing his PCRA petition. 

Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted. 

Judgment Entered. 

J seph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/31/2019 

-7