J - S46028 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. DARRYL LANGERSTON Appellant No. 108 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 15 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 46 - CR - 0002149 - 2006 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. * MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2016 Darryl Langerston appeals, pro se , from the order entered December 15, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, denying, as untimely filed, his sixth petition filed pursuant to the Penns ylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541
- 9546. Langerston seeks relief from the judgment of sentence of a term of 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment imposed on November 14, 2006, following his convictions of third
- degree murder and possessi ng an instrument of a crime. 1 On appeal, Langerston argues: (1) the PCRA court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely filed when he demonstrated the facts supporting his claim were

____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c) and 907(a), respectively.J - S46028 - 16

- 2 -

unknown to him until recently; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a sentence outside the sentencing guideline range and failing to challenge inadmissible hearsay evidence; and (3) the trial court had no jurisdiction because the criminal statutes he was convicted under are unconstitutional. See Lang erston’s Brief at ii. Based upon the following, we affirm. The PCRA court aptly summarized the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal and we adopt the PCRA court’s summary of the background of this case. 2 See PCRA Court Opinion, 2/16/2016 a t 2 - 4. As noted above, the PCRA court concluded Langerston’s petition was untimely filed. “The PCRA timeliness requirement ... is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.” Commonwealth v. Taylor , 67 A.3d 1245, 1248 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied , Taylor v. Pennsylvania , 134 S.Ct. 2695 (2014). Therefore, we must determine the timeliness of the petition before reviewing Langerston’s substantive claims. Id. Generally, all PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that one of the three enumerated exceptions to the time for filing

____________________________________________ 2 On January 6, 2016, the PCRA court ordered Langerston to file a concise statement of err ors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Langerston complied with the PCRA court’s directive, and filed a concise statement on January 22, 2016.J - S46028 - 16

- 3 -

requirement is met. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). The PCRA exce ptions that allow for review of an untimely petition are as follows: (1) governmental interference; (2) the discovery of previously known facts; and (3) a newly recognized constitutional right. See 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(i)
- (iii). Our review of the recor d confirms that the PCRA court properly determined Langerston’s petition, filed December 9, 2015, was untimely, and that Langerston failed to prove the “unknown facts” exception to the PCRA’s one year time bar. See PCRA Court Opinion, 2/16/2016 at 6
- 10 (f inding: Langerston conceded petition was untimely; the information contained in the recently acquired Sentencing Guideline form was not “new,” as it was available at the time of his sentencing hearing; “[t]he Sentencing Guideline form is nothing but a new source of information that Langerston heard first hand at his sentencing hearing[;]” and in any event, Langerston did not demonstrate the form could not have been acquired sooner had he exercised due diligence). Therefore, we adopt the discussion of the P CRA court as dispositive of his first issue on appeal. With regard to his remaining claims, we note that they are substantive challenges to either trial counsel’s stewardship or the jurisdiction of the trial court. See Langerston’s Brief at ii. However, it is well established that “[t]he PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional; therefore, a court may not address the merits of the issues raised if the petition was not timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Jones , 54 A.3d 14, 17 (Pa. Super. 2012)J - S46028 - 16

- 4 -

(citat ion omitted). Accordingly, we are precluding from addressing the remaining claims on appeal. 3 Order affirmed. 4 Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/6/2016

____________________________________________ 3 We note Langerston does not argue that any of the statutory exceptions to the one
- year ti me bar applies to his claims that counsel failed to challenge hearsay evidence and that the criminal statutes he was convicted under are unconstitutional. Moreover, Langerston’s challenge regarding purported hearsay evidence was rejected in his first PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Langerston , 981 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum). Accordingly, even if his petition was timely filed, that particular claim would be unreviewable as previously litigated. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3) (pet itioner only eligible for PCRA relief if the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived).
4 In the event of further proceedings, the parties are directed to attach the PCRA court’s February 16, 2016 opinion to this memorandum.that L an ge r s t o n co uld not es t abli s h th at th e fa c t s up o n w hi c h hi s cl ai m was

pr e d i c at e d we r e unkno wn t o him and that th e y co uld not have b ee n asce rt ai n e d se nt e n ce ." See , P C RA p e titi o n 11 / 1 2/ 1 5 , p. II. Ho weve r , th i s C ou rt d e t ermi n e d se nte n ce d t o " a se nte n ce g r eat e r th an th e l aw ful m axi mum f or a s tan dar d ran ge C oun ty C l e rk of Co urt s o n Se pt emb e r 1 6, 20 1 5 at w hi c h tim e h e r e ali ze d he wa s Co mmi ss i o n on Se nte ncin g G uid e lin e Se n te n ce Fo rm fr o m th e Mo n t go m ery · in v oke th e n ew l y - di sc ov e r e d fac t s exce pti o n at Secti o n 954 5 ( b )( l )( ii ), ar gui n g that h e exe r c i se d du e dili ge n ce in re qu estin g a co p y o f th e Pe nn sy l v ani a fac i all y untim e lin ess o f hi s mo st r ece n t P C RA p e titi o n , Lan gers t o n att e mpte d to Act ("P C RA") , 42 Pa.CS
. A. §§9541

- 9 5 46. Wh il e L ange r s t o n ac kno w l e d ge d th e 

### se p e tition , see kin g p ost
- co n vic ti o n r e li e f pu rs u an t t o the P os t
- Co n vic tio n R e li ef ord e r o f di s mi ss al date d Dece mb er 15, 20 1 5 , di s miss in g h i s untim e l y s ixth pro

App e ll an t , Darry l Lan ge r s t o n ("Langersto n "), app eal s fr o m a fin al FAC T UA L AND PRO CEDURALH ISTO R Y FEB R UARY 16 , 20 1 6 CARPENTER 

### J
. OPINION 108 EDA 2016 D AR RYL LAN G E RSTO N

V. C P

- 46

- C R

- OOO 2 1 4 9

- 2 006 C OMMO NWEA L T H O F P ENNSY L VAN I A I N T H E C O U RT O F C O MM O N PLEAS O F MONT GO ME R Y C O UNTY P ENN S Y L VAN I A C RI M I NA L D I V I S IO N .. . Circulated 06/22/2016 02:30 PMOn M arch 24 , 200 8, Lan g er s ton filed a ti me l y f ir s t P C RA p e titi o n . Coun se l w a s appointed , and findin g n o m e rit o ri ous i ss u es to pur s u e , co un se l fil e d a n o - merit lette r . A fter prop er noti ce pur s u ant to P a. R .C rim
. P
. 9 07, a f inal order di s mi ss in g Lan ge r s t o n 's PC RA p e titi o n was i ss u e d on Ju l y 1 0, 2008. Lan ge r s ton app e al e d
. On Jun e 1 6, 2009, th e P e nn sy l vani a S up erior Co urt affirm e d th e di s mi ss al and th e P e nn sy l v ani a S upre m e C ourt d e ni e d Lan ge r s t o n' s p e titi o n fo r allo w an ce o f ap p e al
.

On F ebru ary 8 , 20 1 0, Lan ge r s t o n fil ed an untim e l y seco nd P CRA p e titi o n . He fil e d a res p o n se to th e pre- di smissal n oti ce s ty l e d as a wri t of h ab eas c o rpu s a d s ubjici e ndum
. On M ay 20, 2010, th e writ of h ab eas c orpus w a s di s mi sse d
. On J un e 2, 2010, th e u ntime l y seco nd PCRA petiti on w a s als o 2 b y th e exe rc i se of du e dili ge nc e . T h e re f o re , thi s Court co nclud e d th at th e n ew l ydi s co ve re d fa c t s ex c e pti on w a s unavai l abl e t o Lan ge r s t o n . A c cor din g l y, th e und erl yi n g m e rit s of thi s untim e l y fifth P CRA p e titio n were n o t r eviewe d b ase d up o n thi s Court 's l a c k of j uri s di c ti o n .

By way of a bri e f b ac k g r o und , on A u g u s t 23, 2006, a jury c o n victe d Appe ll ant of third d eg r ee murd e r and po ssess i o n of an in strum e n t of c rime fo r th e F ebruary 7 , 2006 , s t abbin g d eath of R o d eri c k J a c kso n . On Novemb er 1 4, 2006 , Appellant w a s s entenc e d to a term of 20 t o 40 y ear s' i mpri s onm e nt. A timel y dire ct appeal w a s not fil e d; ho wev er , Lang er s ton 's di re ct app eal ri g ht s we re re instate d and a nun c pro tun e dire ct app eal was f il e d. On Nove mb er 26, 200 7, the P e nn sylv ani a S up erior Court a f firm e d Lan ge r s t o n 's ju d g m e nt of sente nc e . 

# r3

di s mi sse d
. L angersto n appeal e d b oth orders, b ut l ater withdrew the app e al from th e deni al of hi s h ab eas co rp us petiti o n . The P ennsy l van ia Su p eri or Court
affirmed th e di s mi ssal o f hi s secon d P CRA pe tition on February 25, 20 1 1, an d
s ub se que ntl y th e P e nn sy l van i a S up e rio r Court d enie d L angerston's p e ti ti o n for allo w ance of app e al.

On O c tobe r 2 8 , 20 11, L angerst on fi l e d an un ti m e l y third PCRA petitio n , w hich w a s ultimatel y di s mi sse d on J an uary 11, 2012. T h e d i s mi ssal
w as app e al e d, an d o n A u g u s t 29, · 20 1 2, the P e nn sy l van ia S u perior Co u rt
a f firmed the di s mi ss al.

On Marc h 6 , 20 1 3, Lan gers t o n fil e d an u n tim e l y fo urth P CRA petition. It w as dismi ss ed on April 1, 20 1 3. L ange r s to n d id not app eal.

A fi f th untim e l y PC RA petition w a s fi l e d o n Oct o b er 8, 2014. It was dismissed on N o ve mber 1 0, 2014 , af t e r Lan ge r s t on with dr ew it
. M o s t rec e ntl y on D ece mb er 9, 20 1 5, L angersto n file d an un tim e l y sixth PCRA petition, w hi c h i s c u rre ntl y at i ss u e i n th i s app eal. There in , Langer s ton ackno w l e d ge d it s untim e lin ess , b ut att empt ed t o i n voke the n ew l ydisco ve re d facts exce ption at S ec ti on 9545( b )( l ) ( ii) , argu in g that he exerc i se d du e diligenc e in requ es tin g a co p y of hi s P ennsy l v ani a Commi ss i on o n Sente ncin g Gu id e lin e Sen t e nc e Form ("Sen t e n c i ng Gu id e li ne form" ) fro m the Mont g om ery County C l erk o f Cou rt s on Se pt ember 16, 20 1 5 , at w hi ch tim e h e reali ze d h e w a s sen te n ce d to "a se nt e n ce greater than the la w f ul m aximum for
a s tan dard r an ge se nt en c e ." A m ore d e t ail e d u nd ers tan d i ng of hi s ti m e li ness exce ption claim c om es from L an gers ton 's att ached m emo r andu m of l aw and his , .4

I. Thi s C o u rt pro pe rl y di s mi sse d l ang e r s ton 's seco nd P C RA p e tition as untim e l y, w h e n h e fail e d to pr ov e th at th e timelin ess excep tion at Sec tion 9545( b )(l)( ii) , 4 2 Pa. CS. A
. appli e d
. DIS CUS SIO N I. Wh e th er thi s Co urt pr op e rl y di s mi sse d Lang e r st on' s fifth P CRA p e ti tion as untim e l y . w h e n h e fail e d t o prov e th at th e tim e lin ess ex c eption at Sec ti o n 9545 (b )(l ) ( ii) , 4 2 Pa
. C S
. A
. applied
. ISS UE PCRA p e titi o n. Lan ge r s ton fil e d a tim e l y app e al
. Thi s 1 925 (a) Opinion fo llo ws. C ourt i ss u e d a fin al di s mi ssal o rd e r , di s mi ss in g L an ge r s ton' s un tim e l y s i x th not appl y . No furth e r ex pl an ati o n wa s provid e d
. On D ece mb e r 1 5 , 2 01 5, thi s C ourt impr o p erly d e t e rmin e d th at th e n e wly di sc ov ere d e vid e n ce exce ption did not a m att e r o f r eco rd prior t o hi s Se pte mb er 1 6, 2 01 5 , re qu es t, and th at thi s res pon se. H e asse rte d in hi s res pon se th at th e Se n te n c in g Guid e lin e fo rm w as hi s ri g h t to r es p o nd t o th e noti ce . On D ece mb e r 9, 2 01 5 , L an gers ton did fil e a p e tition b ec ause it was untim e ly and n o tim e lin ess e x ce ption s to appli e d and of notifyin g Lan ge r s ton of thi s C ourt' s inte ntion t o dismi ss hi s c urre n t PCRA

On N ov e mb e r 1 9, 2 01 5 , this Cou rt i ss u e d a pre- di s mi ssal noti ce , 1 2/9/ 1 5, atta c h e d M e morandum of Law , p. 1. to th e s t atutory maxi mum and not the stand ard r an ge. See
. PCRA p e ti tion e rron e ou s Se nte n c in g Guid e lin e form which cau se d thi s Cou rt t o s e nte n ce him th e s tandard ran ge se nte n ce but th at th e C ommonw e alth s ubmitte d an that th e under s i g n e d, a s the se nte n c in g judg e , intend e d t o only se ntenc e him to ar g ument in s upport of hi s ineff e ctiv e n ess of counsel cl ai m wh er e he e xpl ai n s 

### IThe re are thr ee s tatu t ory e xce p tions to th e tim e li n ess r e quire m e n t s

o f the P CRA, which provi d e ve ry limite d c i rcum s tanc es t o ex cu se th e l ate filin g 5 The timelin es s of a PCRA p e tition i s a ju risdi c tional re qui s ite . Commonw e alth v . Robinson, 1 2 A.3 d 4 77, 4 7 9 (Pa. S up e r. 2 011)
. " Juri s di c tional tim e li mit s g o to a c ourt 's ri g ht or c omp e t e n cy to adjudi cat e a c ontro ve r s y ." I d
. (quoting Commonw e alth v. H ac ke tt, 956 A .2 d 97 8, 9 8 3 ( Pa
. 2 008))
. " I f th e p e tition i s d e te rmin e d to b e untim e l y , and no e x ce ption h as b ee n pl e d and prov e n, th e p e tition mu s t b e di s mi sse d with o ut a h earin g b ecau se P e nn sy l vani a court s are without juri s di c ti o n to c o n s id e r th e m e rit s of th e petition
. " Commonw e alth v. Ja c k s on, 3 0 A.3 d 5 1 6, 5 1 9 ( P a .Sup e r. 2 011 ) (quotin g Commonwealth v . P e rrin, 947 A.2d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 8 5 (P a . S up e r. 2 0 0 8 ))

Any PCRA p e tition, includin g a sec ond and s ub se qu e nt on e , mu s t b e f il e d wi thin one year of the date th e jud g m e nt of se nt e n ce b ec om es final. 42 P a . C.S.A. §954 5 (b)(l)
. A judgm e nt of s e nte n ce b e com es fin al at th e conclu s i o n of d ire c t re vi e w , or when the time for s e e kin g s uch re vi ew ex pir es . 42 P a . C. S
. A
. §954 5 (b)(3). Our appe ll ate court, w h e n revi e wing th e propri e ty o f an ord e r dismissing a PCRA p e tition on timelin ess g rounds, d e t e rmin es w h e th e r th e dec i s i o n of the trial court i s support e d b y th e e videnc e of r e cord and i s fr ee o f l egal error. Commonwealth v . William s on, 2 1 A .3 d 236, 24 0 ( P a .Sup e r. 2 011)
. Th e trial court's findin gs with r eg ard to the tim e lin ess of a PCRA p e tition will
no t b e disturbed un l e s s th e re i s no support for thos e findin gs in th e ce rti fi e d record
. Id.6

of a p e titi o n. To in vo ke an exce ption , a p e tition mus t al l ege and th e p e titi o n e r mu s t pro ve th at (1 ) th e failure to r ai se th e cl ai m earli e r w a s du e t o th e int erf ere nc e of gove rnm e nt o fficial s; (2) th e cl ai m i s p re dicate d o n fa c t s that
we re un kn own to th e p e tition er and c o uld not h ave b ee n di s co ve re d wi th du e dilig e nc e or (3) th e ri g ht as s e rte d w as rec o g n ize d b y th e U nite d S t at es S upre m e Court or th e P e nn sy l v ani a S upre m e C o urt as a co n sti tutional ri g ht af te r th e p e tition e r' s c a s e w a s d e cid e d and th e ri g ht ha s b een uph e ld to appl y re troacti ve l y . 4 2 Pa.C S
. A. §9545 (b ) (l )( i)

- ( iii)
. A p eti tion alleg ing on e o f th es e e x c e pti o n s mu s t be fil e d within si x ty d ays o f th e date that th e cl ai m c o uld have be e n p re sente d. 42 Pa.C S.A. §9545( b )(2)
. Th e 60- d ay ru l e re quire s a p e titi o n er to pl e ad and pro ve that th e info rm ation on w hi c h h e re li es c ould not h ave be e n obtained e arlie r , despite th e e x ercis e of due dili g enc e . Co mmon w ealth v . Marshall, 5 9 6 Pa
. 5 8 7 , 9 47 A
. 2d 7 1 4 , 72 0 (2 0 0 8 )
. " As su ch , w h e n a PCRA p e tition i s not fil e d within one ye ar o f th e ex piration o f di r e c t revi ew, o r n o t
e ligible for o ne of the three limite d e x c e pti o n s, o r entitl e d to on e o f th e e xc eptions, but n o t filed within 60 d ay s o f th e date th at th e claim c ould have be e n fir s t br o u g ht, the trial court h a s no po we r t o address th e s ub st anti v e m erit s o f a p e titi o n e r 's PCRA cl aims
. " Co mm o n we alth v . R obin s on , 1 2 A.3 d 477, 4 7 9 (P a . S up er. 2 011) ( quotin g C o mmon we alth v . Gambo a -T ay l o r, 753 A
. 2 d 7 80 , 7 8 3 ( Pa. 2 000))
.

In thi s c a se, L an ge r s t o n c o n ce d e d that hi s cu rre nt PCRA p e titio n i s fa c iall y untim e l y. Thi s i s n o t at is s u e. R ath e r , at issue i s w h e th er the S e nte ncin g Guid e lin e form can avail him o f th e n ew l y - di scov e re d fa c t s exce pti o n . 

## . ,7 T h e tim e lin ess exce p ti o n se t fo rth at Section 9545 (b ) (l )( ii) ha s o fte n mi stake nl y b ee n re f e rre d t o as th e "af te r - di scove re d evi d e n ce" exce p ti o n . B e nn e tt, s upr a at 393 , 930 A
. 2 d at 1 270. " Thi s s horth and r efe re n ce w a s a mi s n o m e r, s in ce th e pl ain lan g ua ge o f s ub sec ti o n (b ) (l )( ii) do es n o t r e quire th e p e tition e r t o all ege and pro ve a claim o f 'afte r - di scove re d evi d e n ce." ' Id
. Rath e r, as an initi al juri s di c tion al thr es h o ld , Sec ti o n 9545( b) (l ) (i i ) r e qu ires a p e titi o n e r to all ege and pr ove th at th e r e we r e fac t s unkn o wn t o him and that h e exe rc i se d du e dili ge n ce in di sc o ve rin g th ose fa cts . See 4 2 P a . C.S
. A
. § 9545( b )(l) (ii) ; B e nn e tt, s upr a . On ce ju ri s diction i s establi s h e d, a P C RA p e titi o n e r can pr ese nt a s u bs tanti ve afte r - di sc o ve re d e vid e nc e cl aim
. See42 P a .C. S.A. § 9543 (a )(2) ( vi ) (ex pl ainin g th at t o b e e li g ibl e for re li ef und e r PCRA, p e titi o n e r mu s t pl e ad and pro ve b y pr e pond e ran ce of e vid e n ce that c onvic tion or se nte n ce r es ulte d fr o m, inte r ali a , unav ail ability at tim e of trial of exc ulp atory Th e tim e lin ess exce pti o n se t f o rth in Se ctio n 9545 (b )(l)( ii) re quir es a p e titi o n er t o d e m o n s tr ate h e did not kno w th e fac t s up o n w hi c h h e b ase d hi s p e titi on and c o uld not have l e arn e d tho se fa c t s earli e r b y th e exerc i se o f du e dili ge n ce. C ommon wealth v . B e nn ett, 593 Pa
. 382, 395 , 930 A
. 2 d 126 4 , 1 27 1 (2007)
. D u e dili ge nc e d e m and s th at th e p eti ti o n e r t ake r easo nabl e s te p s t o prot ec thi s own int e r ests . Common weal th v. Carr , 768 A.2 d 11 6 4 , 1 168 ( Pa. S up e r .200 1)
. A p e titi o n e r mu s t ex pl ain w h y h e co uld n o t h ave l e arn e d th e n ew fa c t( s) e arli e r wi th th e exe rci se of du e dili ge n ce. Co mm o n wealth v. Bre ak.iron, 566 Pa. 323, 330

- 3 1 , 78 1 A
. 2 d 94, 98 (200 1 ); C ommon wealth v. Mo n ac o , 996 A
. 2 d 1 076, 1 080 ( Pa. S up er. 20 1 0 )
. Thi s rul e i s s trictl y e nf o r ce d
. Id. A dditi o n al l y , th e fo c u s o f thi s exce ption "i s on th e n ew l y di scove re d fac t s, n o t o n a n ew l y di sc o vere d o r n ew l y willin g so ur ce fo r pr evio u s l y kno wn facts ." C o mm o n wealth v . Mar s h all , 596 Pa. 5 8 7, 596, 947 A.2 d 7 1 4, 720 (2008) ( e mpha s i s in o ri g in al)
. Co mmo n we alth v . Br own , 111 A
. 3 d 17 1 ( P a. Sup er. 20 1 5 ) in d e t ail as foll ows :

T h e exce pti o n at S e ction 9545( b )( l )( ii ) h as b ee n e xplain e d in ·18

p etition 11 / 1 2/ 1 5, atta c h e d m e morandum of law , claim 1 p. 1. H e wa s pr ese nt 1 4 , 2 006 , se nte n c in g h earin g at whi c h Lan ge r sto n wa s pr ese n t. See, P C RA p. II. H o we ve r h e b a s es thi s ar g um e nt on e v e n ts that oc c urre d at hi s N o vemb e r l aw f ul maxi mu m f

or a s tand ard ran ge se n te n ce. " See , P C RA p eti ti o n 11 / 1 2/ 1 5, L an ge r s t o n asse rte d th at h e was se n te n ce d to "a se n te n ce g re at er th an th e Se nte n c in g Guid e lin e form
. In s upp ort of thi s all ege dl y improp e r se nte n ce all ege dly impr o p erly se nte nc e d and h e did not kno w thi s un til h e un co v ere d th e Lan ge r sto n' s n ew l y - di sco v e re d e vid e n ce exce p ti o n arg um e n t i s th at h e w as b ee n asce rtain e d earli er by th e exe rc i se of du e dili ge n ce. T h e c ru x of es t abli s h e d th at th ese fa c t s w e r e unkn own to him o r th at th ey co uld not have

Applyin g th e l a w to th e fa c t s o f thi s case, L an ge r s ton h as n ot
es t abli s h e d th at th e fac t s that h e asse rte d as n e wl y di sco v e re d , n ame l y th e in form ati o n co n tain e d in th e Se nte n c in g Guid e lin e fo rm , and h e h as n o t B r o w n, 1 11 A.3 d at 1 76

- 77 ( e mph as i s in o ri gi n al)
.

[S] ub secti o n (b)(l)(ii) ha s two c ompon e nt s, w hi c h mu s t b e all ege d and prov e d. N ame ly, th e p e tition er mu s t es tabli s h that: 1) th e facts up o n w hi c h th e cl aim was pre di cat e d we re unknown and 2 ) could n o t h av e b ee n asce rt ain e d b y th e exe rci se of due diligence. If th e p etition er all eges and p r o ves th ese tw o compon e nt s, th e n th e P C RA c ourt ha s juri s di cti o n ove r th e clai m und er thi s s ub sec tion. T hu s, th e " n e w facts" exce ption at Sec ti o n 9545 (b)(l)(ii) do es n o t re quir e any m erit s an aly s i s of an und e rlyin g a fte r - di sco v e r e d

- e vid e n ce c l ai m.' Id
. at 395 , 93 0 A
. 2 d at 1 2 71. e vid e nc e that has s ub s equently b ec ome avail abl e and w ould have c han ge d outcom e o f trial if it had b ee n introduc e d). In oth er w o r d s , th e "n e w fa cts " ex c e ption at: : . ..9

for th e e ntire h eari ng, and s upp orts his cl aim in part on the se nte n c in g tran s cript s and th e follo wi n g. He h ear d th e Commo n wealth r eques t thi s Co u rt to " s ente nc e th e , d e f

e nd ant t o th e maximu m p oss i b l e punis h me n t: 20 - 40 year s in c arceration o n th e murd er . .. " (Se nte n c in g 1 1 / 1 4/06 pp. 23 - 24). H e also was pr ese nt wh e n thi s Co urt in announ ci n g hi s se nte n ce s t at ed, "
. .. and th e s ente n ce I will imp ose wi ll b e in th e s t and ard r ange f o r th ir d deg r ee

, murd er . . . [ o ) n th e crim e of thi rd

- d eg r ee mu r d e r , h e wi ll un de r go impri s onm e nt for not le s s than 2 0 nor mor e than 4 0 year s." Id
. at 27. Lan ge r s t o n d oes n o t explain w hat informati o n was n ew l y di scove re d from the Se nte n c in g Gui del in e form that he had not heard at th e se nte n c in g h earin g it se l f
. Th e Se nte ncin g Guideline form is nothing m o re than a n ew so urc e o f inf o rm ati o n th at Langerston heard fir s t hand at hi s se nte ncin g h earin g .

A ssumin g that s om e ho w L ange r s t o n was abl e t o es t abli s h th at th e Sentencin g Guidelin e form pr o vid e d fact s th at h e was pr evio u s l y un aware o f, Langerston w ould n o t b e abl e to es tab li s h du e dil ige n ce in un cove rin g th e S e ntencing Guideline form. In hi s p e titi o n and in hi s r espo n se, L an ge r s ton baldly a s sert s du e dili ge n ce, b u t d oes not acc ount f o r any ac tio n s h e has t ake n before his Sept e mber 1 6, 2 01 5 , Se nte n c in g Gu id e li ne fo rm re q uest t o re tri eve that form. N or c an h e ex pl ain hi s in ac tio n in failin g to pr evious l y req u es t th e S entencin g Guid e line form
. H e s impl y pro vi d es n o f u rth e r ex p l an ati o n . A dditi o n all y, Lan ge r s ton al so s t ate d in hi s r es p o n se t o th e pre di s mi ss al n o ti ce that th e form wasn' t a p art of th e r ecord u n til the tim e he
re qu es te d it on Se pte mb er 1 6, 2 01 5
. H oweve r , h e pr ovi d es n o e vi de n ce t o1 0

By First Class Mail to: D arry l Lan gers to n #GW238 1 S C I Greene 1 75 Pr og r ess Dri ve Wayneb ur g, P A 1 537 0 Copies sent onFebruary 16, 2016 By Interoffice M ail to: C o urt A dmini s trati o n BY THE COURT: 

# WIL~~se~.· L

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 38 rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT s hould be affirm e d. D e c e mb er 15 , 201 5, di s mi ss in g L an ge rston 's unti me l y f i fth P C RA p e ti ti o n Ba se d o n th e f

org oin g anal ys i s, th e fi n al or d e r of di s mi ssal d ate d CO NC LUS IO N av ail him se lf o( the n ew l y- di sc o ve re d evi d e n ce tim e lin ess exce p ti on. Lan gers t o n was un abl e t o es t abli s h due dili ge n ce; theref o re, h e was u nab l e to alm os t nin e ye ar s t o re qu es t th e Sen te n ci n g Guid e lin e form
. Acc ordin g l y, se nte ncin g, N o ve mb er 1 4, 2 00 6. L an ge r s ton d oes n o t ex plain w h y it took him that th e Se nte nci ng Guid e li ne f o rm was e nte re d on t o th e do c ke t on the d ay of re port s. In fa ct, a rev i ew of th e d ocke t b e li es h i s conte n tion. Th e d ocket s h ows Se nte ncin g Guid e lin e fo rm to no avai l or pr o vid e cop i es of pr evio u s d o c ke t s upport that asserti o n, e . g ., w h at pr evious att empts he ma d e at sec u rin g th e f ; ... ~