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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : TERRY L. HUNT, : :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 affir m. The trial court set forth the relevant facts as follow s: This matter arises out of a shooting which occurred on Ma rch 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 [Hun t] previously had a number of violent encounters. [] Ch evelle Clayton (“Clayton”) and her one[ -]year[-]old child [] were passengers in Holland’s vehicle. From the passenger’s se at of his vehicle, [Hunt] aimed a gun and shot three times in to the car driven by Holland. One of the bullets struck the chi ld in the arm; Holland and [] Clayton received injuries from shattere d glass and bullet fragments. Trial Court Opinion, 2/20/14, at 1. Following a jury trial, Hunt was found guilty of th ree counts of attempted homicide, and one count each of criminal consp iracy (attemptedJ-S46041- 14

- 2 -

homicide), recklessly endangering another person and pe rsons 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 s erved consecutively to another prison sentence of 3 to 7 years previously i mposed on Hunt for drug charges. Following a procedural history not herein relevant, this Court affirmed Hunt’s judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supre me Court denied

al lowance 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 Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 860 A.2d 122 (Pa. 2004).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 fo r 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 Super. 2007) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 940 A.2d 363 (Pa. 2007).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 Nove mber 20, 2013. 3 On December 26, 2013, Hunt filed a Notice of Appeal of t he 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 ap peal. 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] Mo tion 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 Co rrections calculation of his sentence, causing him to serve more tim e than what was imposed by the sentencing [j]udge? Brief for Appellant at 4. The PCRA provides the sole means for obtaining collate ral review, and any petition filed after the judgment of sentence beco mes 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 subs tantially similar to his Motion for Correction of Sentence.

4 Both the trial court and the Commonwealth contend tha t 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 conten ds that his Notice of Appeal was mailed on December 19, 2013, one day befor e the 30-day appeal period expired, and that, pursuant to the “pri soner mailbox rule,” his Notice of Appeal was timely filed. Brief for Appella nt 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 w ould remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the timeli ness issue. Id . In the present case, however, no remand is necessary as we find H unt is not entitled to relief. Id

.J-S46041- 14

- 4 -

1293 (Pa. 2002). It is clear, therefor e, that Hunt’s November 7, 2013 Motion for Correction of Sentencing Order qualifies a s 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 judgm ent

becom es final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis adde d). A judgment

of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct revi ew, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the Unit ed 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 th e 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 Decemb er 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 Peti tion (Motion for Correction of Sentencing Order), but did not do so unt il 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 P CRA petition if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions setJ-S46041- 14

- 5 -

forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Any PCRA pe tition invoking one of these exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the d ate 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 applicabi lity 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 Petiti on (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 f or 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 (P a. 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 admini strative process).