J-S13003-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KALULE BUTTO COCHRAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1753 WDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 12, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000785-2005, 

CP-02-CR-0011372-2005

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2018

Appellant, Kalule Butto Cochran, appeals from the order entered in the 

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as untimely his 

third petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On September 11, 2006, the trial court convicted 

Appellant of third-degree murder and conspiracy. The court sentenced 

Appellant on December 4, 2006, to 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment for murder, 

and imposed no further penalty for conspiracy. On March 25, 2008, this Court 

affirmed the judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied allowance 

of appeal on October 16, 2008. See Commonwealth v. Cochran, 953 A.2d 

596 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 786, 959 A.2d 927 (2008). 

On June 2, 2010, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition pro se. The court 

appointed counsel, who filed a petition to withdraw and Turner/Finley “no-
J-S13003-18

- 2 -

merit” letter.

1

 The court granted counsel’s petition, issued appropriate notice 

per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on February 21, 2012, and denied relief on March 26, 

2012. This Court affirmed on July 3, 2013. See Commonwealth v. 

Cochran, 82 A.3d 1055 (Pa.Super. 2013). Appellant filed his second PCRA 

petition pro se on September 16, 2014. The court issued Rule 907 notice on 

October 7, 2014, and denied relief on October 28, 2014. Appellant did not 

appeal that decision.

On September 15, 2016, Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA 

petition. The court issued Rule 907 notice that day. Appellant did not 

respond. By order dated October 12, 2016, and filed October 19, 2016, the 

court denied relief. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on 

November 15, 2016. On November 17, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to 

file a concise statement per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant did not comply.

Preliminarily, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional 

requisite. Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa.Super. 2016). A 

PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within 

one year of the date the underlying judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence is deemed 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 

____________________________________________

1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 
J-S13003-18

- 3 -

expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The 

statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow for very limited circumstances 

to excuse the late filing of a petition; a petitioner asserting an exception must 

file a petition within 60 days of when the claim could have first been presented. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2). 

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on January 14, 

2009, upon expiration of the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with 

the U.S. Supreme Court. See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. Appellant filed the current 

PCRA petition on September 15, 2016, which is patently untimely. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant mentioned the “governmental 

interference” exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(i), claiming trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to investigate fully the Commonwealth witnesses, and 

the prosecutor failed to disclose a plea deal between the Commonwealth and 

a key witness. Appellant vaguely alleged he discovered the underlying claims 

on August 26, 2016, from a fellow inmate. Appellant referred to an exhibit 

purportedly containing the inmate’s affidavit, but no affidavit is in the certified 

record. Thus, Appellant failed to satisfy the 60-day rule; and his current 

petition remains time barred.

2

 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). 

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________

2

In any event, Appellant did not comply with the court’s Rule 1925(b) order, 

so he waived his claims on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 

Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005) (holding issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) 

statement are waived on appeal). 
J-S13003-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/2018