J-S03030-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LEON D. BODLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 382 MDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 22, 2023

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

No(s): CP-41-CR-0001997-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LEON D. BODLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 383 MDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 22, 2023

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

No(s): CP-41-CR-0002072-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LEON D. BODLE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 384 MDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 22, 2023

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

No(s): CP-41-CR-0000743-2009

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.
J-S03030-24

- 2 -

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: ARPIL 30, 2024

Appellant Leon D. Bodle appeals pro se from the order denying his serial

Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition as untimely. On appeal, Appellant 

contends that he has pled and proven an exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional 

time bar. Appellant further alleges legal error on the part of the PCRA court 

and ineffective assistance of prior PCRA counsel. We affirm.

The underlying facts of these cases are well known to the parties. See 

Commonwealth v. Bodle, 32 A.3d 286 (Pa. Super. filed July 29, 2011) 

(unpublished mem.); Commonwealth v. Bodle, 2251 MDA 2012, 2014 WL 

11017339 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 8, 2014) (unpublished mem.). Briefly, 

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses at three separate 

docket numbers based on allegations that he solicited minor victims to commit 

sexual acts, possessed child pornography, unlawfully communicated with 

minors, and sexually abused three minor victims. 

At Docket No. 743-2009, this Court affirmed Appellant’s sentence in 

2011, and our Supreme Court denied further review in 2013. 

Commonwealth v. Bodle, 32 A.3d 286 (Pa. Super. filed July 29, 2011) 

(unpublished mem.), appeal denied, 65 A.3d 412 (Pa. filed April 24, 2013). 

At Docket Nos. 1997-2008 and 2072-2008, this Court affirmed Appellant’s 

sentences in 2014 and Appellant did not seek further review. See 

Commonwealth v. Bodle, 2251 MDA 2012, 2014 WL 11017339 (Pa. Super. 

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S03030-24

- 3 -

filed Jan. 8, 2014) (unpublished mem.). Appellant subsequently filed multiple 

PCRA petitions at all three docket numbers, all of which were ultimately 

denied.

Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition at all three docket 

numbers on June 17, 2022. On January 14, 2023, the PCRA court entered a

Pa.R.Crim. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s PCRA petition without 

a hearing. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition on February 22, 

2023. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal.2 Both Appellant and the PCRA 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the PCRA court erred in ruling [] Appellant’s PCRA 

[petition] as untimely when he exercised due diligence despite 

due diligence no longer being required of incarcerated 

individuals?

2. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying [Appellant’s] request 

to have evidence examined by a forensic expert at his own 

expense, and therefore denying him due process?

3. Whether the PCRA court erred when it improperly denied [] 

Appellant’s PCRA [petition] and accompanying motions by 

failing to fully evaluate the facts when exceptional 

circumstances do exist including probable police and 

prosecutorial misconduct making it desirable in the interest of 

justice?

4. Whether a strong prima facie showing was demonstrated that 

a miscarriage of justice did occur?

____________________________________________

2 The record reflects that Appellant filed separate notices of appeal at each 

docket number in compliance with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969

(Pa. 2018), and its progeny. On March 28, 2023, this Court entered an order 

consolidating Appellant’s appeals. Order, 3/28/23 (per curiam).
J-S03030-24

- 4 -

5. Whether the PCRA court erred in not appointing counsel for [] 

Appellant’s PCRA [petition] in light of exceptional 

circumstances existing of probable police and prosecutorial 

misconduct, which makes it desirable in the interest of justice?

6. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying [Appellant’s] request 

for documents making it more difficult to advance his claims, 

and therefore denying him due process?

7. Whether the PCRA court erred in its use of Pa.R.Crim.P. 907

where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abandoned its 

approach to preservation of post-conviction relief using Rule 

907?

8. Whether previous PCRA counsel was [ineffective] for not being 

cognizant of Appellant’s trial counsel being investigated, 

arrested, and eventually convicted of a sex crime, and 

therefore presenting a conflict of interest, in addition to a lack 

of morals, character, values, and a lack of candor to the trial 

court itself to properly represent [Appellant]?

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (formatting altered).

In his first claim, Appellant argues that the PCRA court erred in 

dismissing his petition as untimely. Id. at 14. Specifically, Appellant argues 

that he met the newly-discovered fact exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). 

Id. In support, Appellant contends that since the time of trial, he has 

maintained that the Commonwealth presented an edited version of his 2010 

police interview to the jury. However, Appellant argues that because he has 

been unable to obtain any forensic analysis to prove that the video was 

altered, the evidence forming the basis for his claim “has yet to be actually 

‘discovered.’” Id. Appellant also argues that he exercised due diligence in 

attempting to obtain this information, as he notified prior counsel and obtained 
J-S03030-24

- 5 -

funds required to retain an expert for a forensic review of the interview. Id.

at 11-14.

Our review of the denial of PCRA relief is limited to “whether the record 

supports the PCRA court’s determination and whether the PCRA court’s 

decision is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 

(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

“[T]he timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.” 

Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. Super. 2015). A PCRA 

petition, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one 

year of the date the judgment becomes final” unless the petitioner pleads and 

proves one of three statutory exceptions. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). A 

judgement of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes “at the conclusion of 

direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the 

United States and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time 

for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3).

Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a 

judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of 

the following three statutory exceptions:

(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
J-S03030-24

- 6 -

(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. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).

It is the PCRA petitioner’s “burden to allege and prove that one of the 

timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 

1091, 1094 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted and some formatting altered). If a 

petition is untimely, and none of the timeliness exceptions are met, courts do 

not have jurisdiction to address the substance of the underlying claims. 

Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016).

“It is well settled in Pennsylvania that the focus of the exception found 

at § 9545(b)(1)(ii) is on newly-discovered facts, not on newly-discovered 

or newly-willing sources that corroborate previously known facts or previously 

raised claims.” Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 745 (Pa. Super. 

2020) (emphasis added). The plain language of the PCRA requires that the 

newly-discovered facts must have been “previously unknown to the petitioner 

and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

Here, there is no dispute that Appellant’s instant PCRA petition was

facially untimely.

3

____________________________________________

3 As noted previously, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgments of sentence 

at Docket Nos. 1997-2008 and 2072-2008 on January 8, 2014. Appellant did 

not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court; therefore, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03030-24

- 7 -

Here, the PCRA court addressed Appellant’s timeliness claim as follows:

[Appellant] attempts to assert the second statutory exception 

based on “newly discovered” facts. It is clear from the record, 

however, that [Appellant] has been aware of [the] factual basis 

for his claim ever since the taped interview was played during his 

jury trial. In [Docket No.] 743-2009, [Appellant] wrote a letter to

the court prior to his sentencing in which he stated the following: 

A major frustration that I had during the trial was the so 

called “confession tape.” A portion of the tape was deleted.

During my interrogation Officer Samar was in my face 

screaming “you tell me what I want to hear or I will send 

you to federal prison and send you a gift of vaseline.” I was 

confident the jury would take a dim view of the police doing 

this to me but conveniently it was deleted. I do not 

understand how the tape on which it was recorded during 

my interrogation can be transferred to CD and then the CD 

can be considered the “original.” That is totally wrong of 

the police to pull this tactic. I am no molester nor did I have 

any intentions of molesting anyone but I felt backed into a 

corner by the police and I had to either cooperate and 

confess and accept counseling or not cooperate and be sent 

to prison for years. I wish I had access to that tape.

____________________________________________

his judgments of sentence became final on February 7, 2014. See 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9545(b)(3) (stating that the judgment of sentence becomes final at the 

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking the 

review); Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a). 

At Docket No. 743-2009, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for 

allowance of appeal on April 24, 2013. Appellant did not file a petition for a 

writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States; therefore, 

Appellant’s judgment of sentence at Docket No. 743-2009 became final on 

July 23, 2013. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13(1). 

Accordingly, Appellant had until February 7, 2015 at Docket Nos. 1997-2008 

and 2072-2008 and July 23, 2014 at Docket No. 743-2009 to file a timely 

PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant’s instant PCRA 

petition, filed on June 17, 2022, is therefore facially untimely.
J-S03030-24

- 8 -

See Order entered April 16, 2010 directing the clerk of courts to 

forward [Appellant’s] letter to the district attorney and trial 

counsel pursuant to Rule 576 and the attached letter.

[Appellant] made a similar claim in [his] third PCRA petition filed 

on April 5, 2017 in cases 1997-2008 and 2072-2008. As part of a 

broad claim of police misconduct in his case, [Appellant] alleged 

the following: 

In addition, in February [of] 2017, [Appellant] was 

diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by 

the prison psychiatrist Mr. Mobilaji, CRNP as having 

experienced multiple flashbacks and anxiety attacks that 

surfaced in November of 2016 of a suppressed memory of 

Old Lycoming Police Officer Michael Samar striking 

[Appellant] twice in the head with an open hand while 

standing over [Appellant] and yelling “you tell me what I 

want to hear or I will send you to a federal prison for years 

and send you a [gift] of Vaseline”. [Appellant] is receiving 

therapy at SCI-Houtzdale. [Appellant] has no other known 

incident in his life’s history to have caused the PTSD.

Although this interrogation was conducted for [Appellant’s]

other case, [Docket No.] 743-2009, Det. Sgt. Kriner who 

investigated this case and testified for the [Commonwealth]

was sitting in the room across the table from [Appellant]

while Officer Samar assault[sic] [Appellant]. [Appellant]

contends that the interrogation audio tape played at trial 

was edited and had deletions made to it to cover up the 

Officer’s misconduct. [Appellant] believes that the audio 

recording should be examined by a forensic expert for 

deletions and editing. 

(Third) PCRA petition, filed 04/05/2017, at ¶ 15.

* * *

[Appellant’s] petitions are patently untimely. He possessed 

sufficient information in April 2010 to seek [a] forensic analysis of 

the “taped confession” and to file a timely PCRA petition. Since 

his petition is untimely, the [PCRA] court lacks jurisdiction to hold 

an evidentiary hearing or grant [Appellant] any relief.

PCRA Ct. Op. at 6-8.
J-S03030-24

- 9 -

Based on our review of the record, we find that the PCRA court did not 

err when it dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely. See Lawson, 90 A.3d 

at 4. The record reflects that Appellant knew of this issue during trial. See 

Maxwell, 232 A.3d at 745. Indeed, in both his principal brief and his reply 

brief, Appellant acknowledged that he alleged during his trial that an edited 

version of his interview with the police was played for the jury. See 

Appellant’s Brief at 15; Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2. Accordingly, we conclude

that Appellant has failed to overcome the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar, and 

we do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant’s substantive 

claims. See Cox, 146 A.3d at 227; Brown, 111 A.3d at 175.4 For these 

reasons, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s untimely 

PCRA petition.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

____________________________________________

4 Because we conclude Appellant’s PCRA petition is untimely and that we do

not have jurisdiction to review the merits of his claims, we need not address

Appellant’s claims concerning ineffective assistance of prior PCRA counsel nor 

his request for transcripts. Further, concerning Appellant’s request for the 

appointment of counsel, we reiterate that the PCRA petition was untimely and 

therefore, no court has jurisdiction, and the appointment of counsel is not 

required. See Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1033 (Pa. 

Super. 2019) (reiterating that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain 

appeals from the denial of untimely PCRA petitions without a petitioner 

pleading and proving an exception to the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar); see 

also Commonwealth v. Jarmon, 2020 WL 5513561 at *2 n.2 (Pa. Super. 

filed Sept. 14, 2020) (unpublished mem.) (concluding that the interests of 

justice did not require the appointment of counsel for the litigation of an 

untimely PCRA petition where an evidentiary hearing is not required); 

Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating that this Court may cite to unpublished memoranda 

filed after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).
J-S03030-24

- 10 -

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 04/30/2024