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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 Post 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, exceptions to the time 

requirement. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i),(ii), and (iii). Where the 

____________________________________________ 

1

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

- 2 - 

petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for 

filing the petition is met, the petition will be considered timely. These 

exceptions include interference by government officials 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 could have been presented.” 

Id; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). The timeliness requirements 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 sentence became final 

on May 3, 2013, when the time expired for him to file 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 file a timely PCRA petition. 

Id. at § 9545(b)(1). Instantly, Negich did not file his petition until February 

12, 2015;2 therefore, it is untimely. Moreover, Negich does not invoke a 

section 9545(b)(1) exception to overcome the untimely 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 alleged that his parole 

sentence should be reduced. 
J-S37043-16 

- 3 - 

 The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. 

Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008). “Jurisdictional time 

limits go to a court’s right or competency to adjudicate a controversy.” Id.

at 983.3 Accordingly, the PCRA court properly dismissed Negich’s petition. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/14/2016 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Although neither party has raised the issue of timeliness, 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 of the PCRA timing 

mandate, as is the case here, this Court will consider the issue sua sponte, 

as it is a threshold question implicating our subject 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).