J -S29042-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

GURINDER SINGH 

Appellant : No. 2975 EDA 2016 

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 22, 2016 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002760-2012 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, SOLANO, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* 

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 08, 2017 

Appellant Gurinder Singh appeals from the order entered in the Court 

of Common Pleas of Delaware County on August 22, 2016, denying his 

second petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

("PCRA").1 In addition, counsel has filed an Application to Withdraw 

Appearance. Upon review, we grant counsel's motion seeking to withdraw 

and affirm the order of the PCRA court. 

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history 

herein as follows: 

On February 24, 2012, the Appellant was arrested and 

charged with First -Degree Murder, Third -Degree Murder, and 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 
J -S29042-17 

related charges, in connection with the death of his wife. 

Appellant contends that his wife committed suicide because of 

the shame resulting from their daughter marrying a Muslim man. 

Appellant and his wife were followers of the Sikh religion and did 

not approve of their daughter's marriage. The Delaware County 

Coroner determined that the death of Appellant's wife, Jaswinder 

Kaur, was a homicide by asphyxiation, assaulted by another.' 

On April 30, 2012, a Preliminary Hearing was held and Mr. 

Scott Kramer, Esquire represented the Appellant. On May 10, 

2012, Appellant was arraigned. On October 5, 2012, the 

Commonwealth filed a "Motion to Introduce Evidence of the 

Defendant's prior bad acts against the victim under Pa.R.E. 

404(b)". (The Commonwealth asserted that on February 20, 

2012, two days prior to the victim's murder, three of the 

Appellant's children witnessed the Appellant threaten to kill the 

victim. On the same date, the children observed the Appellant 

strike and slap the victim about her face and body). (Motion p. 

2)2 

On December 4, 2012, Appellant entered a non -negotiated 

Guilty Plea to Third -Degree Murder. On January 23, 2013, the 

court held a Sentencing Hearing3. At the Hearing, the 

Commonwealth asked the court to sentence Appellant to a 

period of state incarceration of 20 to 40 years. (N.T. 1/23/13 p. 

30). Appellant's counsel requested the court sentence Appellant 

toward the bottom of the standard range. (N. T. 1/23/13 p. 27). 

On January 23, 2013, the court sentenced Appellant to: 15 to 30 

years, SCI, followed by five years consecutive state probation 

with credit for time served from 2/22/12 to 1/23/13. (N. T. 

1/23/13 p. 35-36). 

On February 5, 2013, Appellant's Plea Counsel filed a 

Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, which was denied on 

March 4, 2013. Appellant never filed a timely Notice of Appeal to 

the Superior Court. However, on October 11, 2013, Appellant's 

Plea Counsel filed an untimely Notice of Appeal at 2878 EDA 

2013, which was withdrawn by Plea Counsel on November 26, 

2013. 

PCRA I: 

On March 3, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA Petition 

alleging inter alia that Plea Counsel failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal. (pro se PCRA Petition p. 3). On March 5, 2014, an 

order was entered appointing Steve Molineux, Esquire as PCRA 

counsel. On November 5, 2014, Mr. Molineux, Esquire filed a "No 

Merit" letter. On January 9, 2015, the undersigned entered an 

Order dismissing the Post -Conviction Relief Act Petition. On 

- 2 - 
J -S29042-17 

January 29, 2015, the Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal to 

the Pennsylvania Superior Court and it was docketed at No. 437 

EDA 2015. The Superior Court issued a Memorandum Opinion 

filed December 29, 2015. The Opinion affirmed the PCRA denial 

order, holding the Petition was untimely. 

PCRA II: 

On April 28, 2016, Appellant filed his second pro se PCRA 

Petition. The court appointed Scott Galloway, Esquire, as PCRA 

counsel. On July 11, 2016, Mr. Galloway, filed an "Amended 

Petition for Post Conviction Collateral Relief". On July 27, 2016, 

the Commonwealth responded. On August 9, 2016, the court 

filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA Petition without a 

Hearing. On August 22, 2016, the undersigned entered an Order 

dismissing the Appellant's second Post -Conviction Relief Act 

Petition. 

On September 19, 2016, Appellant filed a timely Notice of 

Appeal. Consequently, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), the Court 

ordered Appellant to file a Concise Statement of Errors 

Complained of on Appeal. On September 21, 2016, Appellant 

filed a Concise Statement . . . . 

'Affidavit of Probable Cause p.2. (Affidavit of Probable Cause, 

Criminal Complaint, and Post Mortem Report were made part of 

the Guilty Plea and admitted into evidence as a basis for the 

Plea. (N. T. 12/4/12 pp. 21-22). 

2 The Appellant entered a Plea before the Motion was heard by 

the court. 

3 Three of the Appellant's five children testified at the Sentencing 

Hearing and each one testified against the Appellant. His son 

Praduc Singh testified: "All I want to say is I want him to receive 

the maximum punishment for what he did. That's all I want to 

say. I don't support him at all." (N.T. 12/4/12 p.12; p.14; p.21). 

Trial Court Opinion, filed January 10, 2017, at 1-4. 

On February 22, 2017, counsel filed his Application to Withdraw 

Appearance and a purported Turner/Finely brief2 with this Court.3 

2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and 

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

-3 
J -S29042-17 

Appellant has not responded to the petition to withdraw as counsel, nor has 

he retained alternate counsel for this appeal. 

Prior to addressing the merits of Appellant's claims on appeal, we must 

first decide whether counsel has fulfilled the procedural requirements for 

withdrawing his representation. Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 

795, 797 (Pa.Super. 2008). This Court has listed the conditions to be met 

by counsel in seeking to withdraw in a collateral appeal as follows: 

Counsel petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation must 

proceed ... under [Turner, supra and Finley, supra and] ... must review the case zealously. Turner/Finley counsel must 

then submit a "no -merit" letter to the trial court, or brief on 

appeal to this Court, detailing the nature and extent of counsel's 

diligent review of the case, listing the issues which petitioner 

wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues 

lack merit, and requesting permission to withdraw. 

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. 

(Footnote Continued) 

3 Counsel erroneously purports to withdraw under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), which applies when 

counsel seeks to withdraw from representation on direct appeal. When 

counsel seeks to withdraw from representation on collateral appeal, as is the 

case herein, the dictates of Finley and Turner are applicable. 

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

petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation must proceed not under 

Anders, but under Turner and Finley). However, because an Anders brief 

provides greater protection to a defendant, this Court may accept an 

Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley "no merit" letter. Commonwealth 

v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137, 139 n. 5 (Pa.Super. 2014). We will refer to 

counsel's erroneously titled Anders Brief as a Turner/Finley brief. 

-4 
J -S29042-17 

* * * 

[W]here counsel submits a petition and no -merit letter that ... satisfy the technical demands of Turner/Finley, the court-trial 

court or this 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. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 454 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation 

omitted). 

Herein, counsel indicates he had made a thorough review of 

Appellant's case, and after said review concluded the appeal is wholly 

frivolous. See Application to Withdraw Appearance, filed 2/22/17, at 1111 2- 

3. Counsel also lists numerous issues relevant to this appeal and explains 

why, in his view, they lack merit. In addition, counsel has attached to his 

motion a copy of the letter he sent to Appellant wherein counsel advised 

Appellant of his right to proceed pro se or through privately -retained 

counsel. Counsel also attached to the letter a copy of his application to 

withdraw and Turner/Finely brief. Thus, we conclude that counsel has 

substantially complied with the requirements necessary to withdraw as 

counsel. See Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 947 

(Pa.Super. 2003) (holding that substantial compliance with the requirements 

to withdraw as counsel will satisfy the Turner/Finley criteria).4 We now 

4 We note that to withdraw under Anders, counsel must: (1) petition the 

Court for leave to withdraw and certify that after a thorough review of the 

record, he or she has concluded that the issues to be raised are wholly 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 

-5 
J -S29042-17 

review this appeal based on the issues of arguable merit counsel presented 

in the Turner/Finley brief to ascertain whether they entitle Appellant to 

relief. 

Counsel identified the following issues for appellate review: 

1) The Guilty Plea offer was not knowingly, voluntarily and 

intelligently tendered. 

2) It was requested of Trial Counsel to provide an interpreter 

knowing that [Appellant] could not properly understand, spell, 

read or write the English language. 

3) [Appellant] requested Trial Counsel to file a timely Motion 

for Reconsideration of Sentence and Counsel failed to do so. 

4) Trial Counsel was requested to file a Notice of Appeal to 

the Superior Court which he failed to do in a timely manner 

resulting in said Appeal being withdrawn. 

Turner/Finely Brief at 4. 

When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, this 

Court is limited to a determination of whether the evidence of record 

supports the PCRA court's conclusions and whether its ruling is free of legal 

error. Commonwealth v. Robinson, Pa. , , 139 A.3d 178, 

185 (2016). This Court will not disturb the PCRA court's findings unless 

(Footnote Continued) 

frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to anything in the record that might 

arguably support the appeal; and (3) provide a copy of the brief to the 

appellant advising him of his right to obtain new counsel or to file a pro se 

brief raising any additional points that the appellant deems worthy of review. 

Karanicolas, supra at 947. 

-6 
J -S29042-17 

there is no support for them in the certified record. Commonwealth v. 

Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa.Super. 2014). 

At the outset, we consider whether this appeal is properly before us. 

The question of whether a petition is timely raises a question of law, and 

where a petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo 

and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 

118, 121 (Pa.Super. 2014). 

All PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of the date upon which 

the judgment of sentence became final, unless one of the statutory 

exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies. The 

petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving an applicable statutory 

exception. If the petition is untimely and the petitioner has not pled and 

proven an exception, the petition must be dismissed without a hearing 

because Pennsylvania courts are without jurisdiction to consider the merits 

of the petition. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa.Super. 

2013). 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) states: 

(b) Time for filing petition. -- 

(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or 

subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the 

date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless the 

petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: 

(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result 

of interference by government officials with the presentation of 

-7 
J -S29042-17 

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). In addition, any petition attempting to invoke 

one of these exceptions "shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim 

could have been presented." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). 

Herein, Appellant was sentenced on January 23, 2013, and filed an 

untimely post -sentence motion on February 5, 2013. As the post -sentence 

motion had been untimely filed, it did not toll the time period in which 

Appellant was required to file a notice of appeal with this Court. See 

Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613, 618 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc). 

As such, Appellant's notice of appeal had to be filed by February 22, 2013. 

As Appellant failed to do so, his judgment of sentence became final for 

purposes of the PCRA on that date. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3) ("a 

judgment 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"); see also U.S. Sup.Ct.R. 13.1. 

A timely PCRA petition had to have been filed by Monday, February 

24, 2014; therefore, the instant petition initially filed pro se on April 28, 

- 8 - 
J -S29042-17 

2016, was patently untimely, and the burden fell upon Appellant to plead 

and prove that one of the enumerated exceptions to the one-year time -bar 

applied to his case. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); Commonwealth v. 

Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa.Super. 2008) (to invoke a statutory 

exception to the PCRA time -bar, a petitioner must properly plead and prove 

all required elements of the exception). 

A prior panel of this Court previously determined we lacked jurisdiction 

to consider Appellant's fourth claim presented herein that his plea counsel 

had been ineffective for failing to file a timely notice of Appeal from 

Appellant's judgment of sentence because he raised it in an untimely PCRA 

petition. Commonwealth v. Singh, No. 437 EDA 2015, unpublished 

memorandum at 6-8 (Pa.Super. filed December 29, 2015). Therefore, this 

claim was previously litigated. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3) (requiring 

that the allegation of error an appellant presents in a PCRA petition has not 

been previously litigated or waived); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(a)(2) 

(an issue is previously litigated if "the highest appellate court in which the 

petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits 

of the issue"). 

With regard to the remaining three claims Appellant presents, we find 

that he has not pled or proven the applicability of any exception to the PCRA 

time -bar under Section 9545(b), nor does he explain why he could not have 

known about these issues until April of 2016. As such, Appellant's second 

-9 
J -S29042-17 

petition filed pursuant to the PCRA is manifestly untimely and this Court 

lacks jurisdiction to offer him any form of relief. Commonwealth v. 

Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 523 (Pa.Super. 2011). 

Motion to withdraw as counsel granted. Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

J seph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 5/8/2017 

- 10 -