J-S37043-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. DAVID WAYNE NEGICH Appellant No. 1995 WDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 17, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0000473-2008
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and LAZARUS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2016 David Wayne Negich appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, denying his Po st Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition, following a hearing. 1 Because Negich’s petition is untimely and does not meet an exception to the PCRA time requirement, we affirm. Generally, a petition for PCRA relief, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment is final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also Commonwealth v. Alcorn , 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997). There are, however, excepti ons to the time requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i),(ii), and (iii). Wher e the

____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.J-S37043-16

- 2 -

petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that a n exception to the time for filing the petition is met, the petition will be co nsidered timely. These exceptions include interference by government offic ials in the presentation of the claim, after-discovered facts or evidence, and an after-recognized constitutional right. See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor , 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000). A PCRA petition invoking one of these exceptions must “be filed within 60 days of the date the claims cou ld have been presented.” Id ; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). The timeliness require ments of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, a PCRA court cannot hear untimely petitions. Commonwealth v. Robinson , 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003). For purposes of the PCRA, Negich’s judgment of sen tence became final on May 3, 2013, when the time expired for him to fi le a direct appeal from his parole revocation sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Therefore, he had until May 3, 2014, to fi le a timely PCRA petition. Id. at § 9545(b)(1). Instantly, Negich did not file h is petition until February 12, 2015; 2 therefore, it is untimely. Moreover, Negich does not invoke a section 9545(b)(1) exception to overcome the untime ly filing of his petition.

____________________________________________ 2 While Negich filed a motion titled, “ Pro Se PCRA/Sentence Reconsideration” on March 27, 2014, the court properly treated it as a motion to modify sentence, and not a PCRA petition, wherein it alleg ed that his parole sentence should be reduced.J-S37043-16

- 3 -

The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictio nal requisite. Commonwealth v. Hackett , 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008). “Jurisdictional time limits go to a court’s right or competency to adjud icate a controversy.” Id. at 983. 3 Accordingly, the PCRA court properly dismissed Ne gich’s petition. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/14/2016

____________________________________________ 3 Although neither party has raised the issue of tim eliness, an untimely petition renders this Court without jurisdiction to afford relief. Commonwealth v. Gandy , 38 A.3d 899 (Pa. Super. 2012). Even where the PCRA court does not address the applicability o f the PCRA timing mandate, as is the case here, this Court will consi der the issue sua sponte , as it is a threshold question implicating our subje ct matter jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Pursell , 749 A.2d 911, 913-14 (Pa. 2000); Commonwealth v. Fahy , 737 A.2d 214, 217 (Pa. 1999); Commonwealth v. Yarris , 731 A.2d 581, 587 (Pa. 1999).