J-S46041-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee : 

: 

v. : 

: 

TERRY L. HUNT, : 

: 

Appellant : No. 2300 MDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order entered on November 20, 2013 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, 

Criminal Division, No. CP-22-CR-0002174-2000 

BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014 

Terry L. Hunt (“Hunt”) appeals, pro se, from the Order denying his 

Motion for Correction of Sentencing Order. We affirm. 

 The trial court set forth the relevant facts as follows: 

This matter arises out of a shooting which occurred on March 28, 

2000. On that day, [Hunt] and his cousin were driving [Hunt’s] 

vehicle in the city of Harrisburg, when they spotted a vehicle 

driven by Jeffrey Holland (“Holland”), with whom [Hunt] 

previously had a number of violent encounters. [] Chevelle 

Clayton (“Clayton”) and her one[-]year[-]old child [] were 

passengers in Holland’s vehicle. From the passenger’s seat of 

his vehicle, [Hunt] aimed a gun and shot three times into the car 

driven by Holland. One of the bullets struck the child in the arm; 

Holland and [] Clayton received injuries from shattered glass and 

bullet fragments. 

Trial Court Opinion, 2/20/14, at 1. 

 Following a jury trial, Hunt was found guilty of three counts of 

attempted homicide, and one count each of criminal conspiracy (attempted 
J-S46041-14

- 2 - 

homicide), recklessly endangering another person and persons not to 

possess a firearm.1

 On March 16, 2001, the trial court sentenced Hunt to an

aggregate sentence of 23 to 46 years in prison, to be served consecutively 

to another prison sentence of 3 to 7 years previously imposed on Hunt for 

drug charges. 

 Following a procedural history not herein relevant, this Court affirmed 

Hunt’s judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied 

allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 852 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 

2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 860 A.2d 122 (Pa. 

2004). On April 21, 2005, Hunt filed a Petition for relief pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),2

 which was dismissed by the PCRA court on 

December 7, 2006. This Court affirmed the dismissal of Hunt’s PCRA 

Petition, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Hunt, 935 A.2d 13 (Pa. Super. 2007) (unpublished 

memorandum), appeal denied, 940 A.2d 363 (Pa. 2007). 

On September 9, 2013, Hunt filed, pro se, a Motion for Correction of 

Sentence, which the trial court denied on September 17, 2013. On 

November 7, 2013, Hunt filed, pro se, the instant Motion for Correction of 

 

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2501, 903, 2705, 6106. 

2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 
J-S46041-14

- 3 - 

Sentencing Order, which the trial court denied on November 20, 2013.3 On 

December 26, 2013, Hunt filed a Notice of Appeal of the November 20, 2013 

Order.4

 On January 7, 2014, the trial court ordered Hunt to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. Hunt filed a 

timely Concise Statement. 

 On appeal, Hunt raises the following question for our review: 

Was the [trial court] in error for denying [Hunt’s] Motion for 

Correction of Sentencing Order, where there is a clear clerical 

error, which the trial court has the inherent power to correct, 

and this is affecting the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 

calculation of his sentence, causing him to serve more time than 

what was imposed by the sentencing [j]udge? 

Brief for Appellant at 4. 

The PCRA provides the sole means for obtaining collateral review, and 

any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be 

treated as a PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 803 A.2d 1291, 

 

3 Hunt’s Motion for Correction of Sentencing Order is substantially similar to 

his Motion for Correction of Sentence. 

4 Both the trial court and the Commonwealth contend that Hunt’s appeal is 

untimely, as his Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the 30-day appeal period 

permitted by Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). However, Hunt contends that his Notice of 

Appeal was mailed on December 19, 2013, one day before the 30-day 

appeal period expired, and that, pursuant to the “prisoner mailbox rule,” his 

Notice of Appeal was timely filed. Brief for Appellant at 3. To avail himself 

of the prisoner mailbox rule, however, an incarcerated litigant must supply 

sufficient proof of the date of mailing. Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170, 176 

(Pa. Super. 2001). Here, the record is devoid of any evidence to support 

Hunt’s timeliness claim. Normally, in such a case, we would remand to the 

trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue. Id. In the 

present case, however, no remand is necessary as we find Hunt is not 

entitled to relief. Id. 
J-S46041-14

- 4 - 

1293 (Pa. 2002). It is clear, therefore, that Hunt’s November 7, 2013 

Motion for Correction of Sentencing Order qualifies as a PCRA petition. 

Initially, under the PCRA, any PCRA petition “including a second or 

subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment 

becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis added). A judgment 

of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct review, including 

discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the 

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the 

review.” Id. § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are 

jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues 

raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. 

Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). 

Here, Hunt’s judgment of sentence became final on December 5, 

2004, when the ninety-day period of time to file an appeal with the United 

States Supreme Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also

Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258, 1260 (Pa. 1999). Hunt had 

until December 5, 2005, to file the instant PCRA Petition (Motion for 

Correction of Sentencing Order), but did not do so until November 7, 2013. 

Thus, Hunt’s PCRA Petition (Motion for Correction of Sentencing Order) is 

facially untimely under the PCRA. 

However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition 

if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set 
J-S46041-14

- 5 - 

forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Any PCRA petition invoking one of 

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

have been presented.” Id. § 9545(b)(2); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. 

Here, Hunt has failed to plead or prove the applicability of any of the 

exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9545(b)(1); see also Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. Accordingly, Hunt has 

failed to overcome the untimeliness of his PCRA Petition (Motion for 

Correction of Sentencing Order).5

Order affirmed. 

Shogan, J., concurs in the result. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/20/2014 

 

5 We note that a challenge to the calculation of time for a sentence is 

addressed to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and not to the 

courts. See Evans v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 713 A.2d 741, 743 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (stating that inmate’s failure to petition the Board of 

Probation and Parole for administrative relief from the alleged miscalculation 

of a sentence bars judicial intervention in the administrative process).