J-S43032-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TYRONE TOMLIN

Appellant No. 2855 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 3, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0201421-1998

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 22, 2015

Appellant, Tyrone Tomlin, appeals from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his serial petition 

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

9546. On February 16, 2000, a jury convicted Appellant of third-degree 

murder and related offenses. The court sentenced Appellant on April 26, 

2000, to an aggregate term of 231⁄2 to 47 years’ imprisonment. This Court 

affirmed the judgment of sentence on April 9, 2001, and our Supreme Court 

denied petition for allowance of appeal on August 20, 2001. See 

Commonwealth v. Tomlin, 778 A.2d 739 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 

566 Pa. 681, 784 A.2d 117 (2001). 

On September 13, 2001, Appellant timely filed his first PCRA petition, 

which the PCRA court ultimately denied. This Court affirmed, and our 
J-S43032-15

- 2 -

Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a 

second PCRA petition, which was unsuccessful. Appellant filed the current 

PCRA petition pro se on December 5, 2012. On August 7, 2014, the PCRA 

court issued Rule 907 notice; and Appellant responded pro se on August 22, 

2014. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition on September 3, 2014. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on October 1, 2014. No Rule 

1925(b) statement was ordered or filed. 

The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. 

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

denied, 556 U.S. 1285, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (2009). A PCRA 

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 three statutory exceptions to the 

timeliness provisions in the PCRA allow for very limited circumstances under 

which the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a 

petition within sixty days of the date the claim could first have been 

presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) requires the 

petitioner to allege and prove facts unknown to him, which he could not 

have ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1)(ii). 
J-S43032-15

- 3 -

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on November 

18, 2001, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari. 

Appellant filed his current petition on December 5, 2012, more than eleven 

years after the judgment became final; thus, it is patently untimely. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant attempts to invoke the “after discovered 

facts” exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) by contending a witness had 

provided Appellant with a statement of the witness’ version of the events 

that led to Appellant’s convictions. Nevertheless, Appellant failed to prove 

how, with the exercise of due diligence, he could not have discovered the 

evidence earlier, when the witness’ unsworn statement indicated he had 

been with Appellant on the night of the crimes. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1)(ii). Thus, Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) cannot serve to excuse 

Appellant’s otherwise untimely petition. See id. Accordingly, the PCRA 

court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/22/2015