J-S56012- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. CRAIG WAYNE RODNEY Appellant No. 3 58 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 11 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 35

- CR -0002927-2009
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J. * JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 07, 2014 Appellant, Craig Wayne Rodney, appeals pro se from the order entered February 11, 2014, by the Court of Common Pleas of L ackawanna County, which denied Rodney’s Post Conviction Relief Act 1 (PCRA) petition. We affirm. On February 3, 2010, Rodney entered a nolo contende re plea to one count of indecent assault on a person less than 13 years of age, in exchange for which all other pending charges were nolle prossed . On May 13, 2010, the trial court sentenced Rodney to two and one- half to five years’ incarceration. Rodney filed a motion for reconsiderati on of sentence, which was denied on May 20, 2010. Rodney did not file a d irect appeal.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 42 P A .C ONS .S TAT .A NN . §§ 9541-9546J-S56012- 14

- 2 -

On January 3, 2013, Rodney filed a pro se Motion to Reinstate PCRA Rights. Kurt Lynott, Esquire, was appointed to repre sent Rodney. Appointed counsel subsequently filed a Petition to With draw and a Turner/Finley no -merit letter. On January 14, 2014, the PCRA court filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss Rodney’s PCRA petition as untimely and granted counsel permission to withdraw re presentation. On February 11, 2014, the PCRA court dismissed Rodney’s pe tition. This timely
pro se appeal followed. Rodney raises four issues on appeal. Preliminarily, w e note that on March 4, 2014, the PCRA court directed Rodney file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal w ithin 21 days of the date of the order. To date, Rodney has failed to com ply with court’s order. Rule 19 25(b)(4)(vii) explicitly states that “ [i]ssues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the pr ovisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Accordingly, we are const rained to find that Rodney’s failure to comply with the PCRA court’s Rule 1 925(b) directive resulted in waiver 2 of all issues raised on appeal. 3

____________________________________________
2 As Rodney’s court appointed counsel was granted permission to withdraw representation and Rodney has elected to proceed with this appeal pro se , he cannot benefit from the provision in Pa.R.A.P. 192 5(c)(3), permitting an appellate court to remand where failure to file a con cise statement is attributed to per se ineffective assistance of counsel.

3 Even if we had not found the claims waived, Rodney would not be entitled to relief. His PCRA petition was patently untimely, see 42 P A .C ONS .S TAT .A NN
. (Footnote Continued Next Page)J-S56012- 14

- 3 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/7/2014

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ § 9545(b)(1), and he fails to properly plead any exc eption to the time bar. See 42 P A .C ONS .S TAT .A NN . § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). His first claim is of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Wharton , 886 A.2d 1120, 1127 (Pa. 2005) (“ It is well settled that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdictional timeliness requirements of the PCRA.”). In his second claim, consisti ng of just two sentences, he attempts to set forth the after-discovered e vidence exception, s ee 42 P A .C ONS .S TAT .A NN . § 9545(b)(1)(ii), but fails to plead and prove tha t he filed his petition within 60 days when he discovere d that the medical reports and rape kit “were ruled inconclusive.” Appellan t’s Brief, at 11. In his third claim, he argues that the police violated his Miranda rights. This claim does not come within any of the timeliness excepti ons of the PCRA and, in fact, would have been found waived in a first , timely filed PCRA petition as it could have been raised on direct appeal

. See Commonwealth v. Elliott , 80 A.3d 415, 427 (Pa. 2013). His fourth claim mai ntains that his sentence is illegal. See Commonwealth v. Fahy , 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (“ Although legality of sentence is always subject to revie w within the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.”). In actuality, it is a discretiona ry aspects of sentencing claim.