J

- S10011

- 16

_____________________________ *Retired Senior Judge as signed to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. CLINTON WALKER Appellant No. 1752 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 18 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0506521

- 1999

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEM BER 29, 2015 Appellant, Clinton Walker, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Philadelphia 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. On April 15, 1999, Appellant shot and killed Victim during a “game” of “Russian Roulette,” following an argument between Appellant and Victim over a counterfeit $100.00 bill. Appellant was 17 years old at the time of the sh ooting. Appellant pled guilty on December 16, 1999, to murder generally. Following a degree

- of

- guilt hearing, the court convicted Appellant of first

- degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. This Court affirmed on March 22, 20 01. See Commonwealth v. Walker , 777 A.2d 510 (Pa.Super. 2001). On May 23,J

- S10011

- 16

- 2

-

2005, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition, which the court dismissed on August 14, 2006. On June 14, 2010, Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA petition. Appellant filed a mendments on August 3, 2012, September 17, 2012, and December 26, 2013. On June 12, 2014, the court issued notice per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant responded on June 30, 2014. The court denied PCRA relief on May 18, 2015. On June 3, 2015, Appellant timel y filed a notice of appeal. No Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was ordered or filed. The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. Commonwealth v. Turner , 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied , 625 Pa. 649, 91 A.3d 162 (2014). A P CRA 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 or at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b )(3). The statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness provisions allow for very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused; a petitioner asserting an exception must file a petition within 60 days of the date the clai m could have been presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (b)(2). When asserting the newly created constitutional right exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “a petitioner must prove that there is a ‘new’ constitutional right and that the right ‘has been held’ by that court to apply retroactively.” Commonwealth v. Chambers , 35 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied , 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012).J

- S10011

- 16

- 3

-

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on April 21, 2001, upon expiration of t he time to file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113. Appellant filed the current petition on June 14, 2010, which is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant now attempts to invoke a timeliness exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), claiming Miller v. Alabama , ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) set forth a newly recognized constitutional right, held to apply retroactively. 1 Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has ruled Miller does not apply retroactively to sentences which became final before the filing date of Miller (June 25, 2012). See Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 622 Pa. 543, 81 A.3d 1 (2013), cert. den ied , ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2724, 189 L.Ed.2d 763 (2014). Thus, the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition. 2
Order affirmed.

____________________________________________ 1 In his PCRA petition filed June 14, 2010, Appellant relied on Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) (holding imposition of life without parole sentences for juvenile non - homicide offenders violates Eighth Amendment). Graham does not apply to Appellant, as the court convicted Appellant of first

- degree murder. See id. Appellant relied on Miller in his amended PCRA petitions.

2 Appellant’s attempt to seek habeas corpus relief also fails. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (stating PCRA shall be sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all oth er common law and statutory remedies for same purpose); Commonwealth v. Deaner , 779 A.2d 578 (Pa.Super. 2001) (stating any collateral petition raising issues with respect to remedies offered under PCRA will be considered PCRA petition).J

- S10011

- 16

- 4

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/29/2015