J-S88021-16

- 1 -

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL BARONI

Appellant No. 3480 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 5, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0000845-1982

BEFORE: OLSON, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JANUARY 23, 2017

Appellant, Michael Baroni, pro se appeals from the November 5, 2015 

order dismissing, as untimely, his serial petition filed under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

In January 1982, Appellant confessed to authorities that he set fire to 

an inhabited apartment building. A three-month-old girl and her four-yearold sister died as the result of the fire. In October 1982, following a jury 

trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of second degree murder, 

arson, and related offenses.1 In April 1983, Appellant was sentenced to two, 

concurrent terms of life imprisonment to be followed by consecutive terms in 

prison for the remaining offenses. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c), and 3301(a)(1), respectively.
J-S88021-16

- 2 -

On October 15, 2015, Appellant pro se filed the instant petition 

asserting that the criminal informations relating to the second degree 

murders were defective and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose his 

sentence.2 Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, the instant

petition essentially claims that Appellant’s sentence is illegal. Appellant’s 

Brief at 10-14. Therefore, his claim is subsumed into the PCRA. 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9543(a)(2). 

“Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within the 

PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA's time limits or one of the 

exceptions thereto.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 222 (Pa. 

1999) (internal citations omitted). The timeliness of Appellant’s petition 

implicates our jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in order to 

address the merits of his claim. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 

A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, any petition for relief, 

including second and subsequent petitions, must be filed within one year of 

the date on which the judgment of sentence becomes final. Id. There are 

three statutory exceptions:

(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of 

interference by government officials with the presentation of the 

____________________________________________

2 This is Appellant’s seventh petition. All of Appellant’s previous petitions 

were dismissed as meritless or untimely including Appellant’s September 

2014 petition, which this Court treated as a habeas corpus petition. See 

Commonwealth v. Baroni, 125 A.3d 459 (Pa. Super. 2015) (table).
J-S88021-16

- 3 -

claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this 

Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown 

to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the 

exercise of due diligence; or

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was 

recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the 

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in 

this section and has been held by that court to apply 

retroactively.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke these 

exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have 

been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2). This Court’s standard of review 

regarding an order denying a petition under the PCRA is whether the 

determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and 

is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 

2007).

Appellant’s petition is untimely, and he has failed to argue or establish 

an exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA.3 Consequently, 

the PCRA court was without jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant’s 

claims, and properly dismissed his petition. See Ragan, 932 A.2d at 1170.

____________________________________________

3 Appellant’s petition is patently untimely. Appellant’s judgment of sentence 

became final on November 4, 1991, ninety days after our Supreme Court 

denied his petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Baroni, 

596 A.2d 153 (1991) (table); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3). See 

Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396, 398 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

(recognizing that the one year grace period outlined in the 1995 

amendments to the PCRA (i.e., January 16, 1996) does not apply to second 

or subsequent petitions, regardless of when the first petition was filed. 
J-S88021-16

- 4 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/23/2017