J-S40009-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TROY TAQUELL ALVIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2546 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 19, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001323-2003

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 26, 2018

Appellant, Troy Taquell Alvin, appeals pro se from the June 19, 2017 

Order entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas dismissing 

his sixth Petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. 

§§ 9541-9546, as untimely. After careful review, we affirm.

On February 16, 2004, a jury convicted Appellant of First-Degree 

Murder. The court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment. This 

Court affirmed Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence and our Supreme Court 

denied allocatur on April 4, 2006. Commonwealth v. Alvin, No. 2206 EDA 

2004 (Pa. Super. 2005) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, No. 632 

MAL 2005 (Pa. 2006). Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence became final on July 

3, 2006. See 42 Pa.C.S § 9545(b)(3).

Between June 2006 and March 2014, Appellant filed five PCRA Petitions, 

none of which garnered relief. On September 16, 2016, Appellant filed the 
J-S40009-18

- 2 -

instant Petition, his sixth, challenging the legality of his sentence. The PCRA 

court appointed counsel who filed a Petition to Withdraw and a Turner/Finley

“no merit” letter.1 On May 8, 2017, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 

Notice advising Appellant of its intent to dismiss his Petition without a hearing 

as untimely filed.

On June 5, 2017, Appellant filed a response to counsel’s Petition to 

Withdraw. On June 19, 2017, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing 

Appellant’s PCRA Petition. On June 28, 2017, the PCRA court granted 

counsel’s Petition to Withdraw. 

This appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following four issues on appeal:

1. Whether the specific statute first-degree murder 18 Pa.C.S. § 

2502(a), is severable from the specific statute criminal 

homicide 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501, as a lesser or necessarily included 

offense to one another?

2. Whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501(a), as a first-degree felony when 

charged in a non-capital murder case holds a maximum 

allowable sentence of 20 years pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 

1103(1) (sentence of imprisonment for felony)?

3. Whether the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted 18 

Pa.C.S. § 1102 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711, capital punishment 

statutes, for sentencing purposes, to be specific to cases 

involving capital murder where a defendant faces the real 

possibility of the death penalty?

____________________________________________

1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 
J-S40009-18

- 3 -

4. Whether the PCRA court erred in granting counsel’s request to 

withdraw?[2]

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some capitalization omitted)

We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record 

supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of 

legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). Before 

addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, however, we must first determine 

whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCRA Petition. No 

court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA Petition. Commonwealth v. 

Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa. 2008).

A PCRA Petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying 

Judgment becomes final; a Judgment is deemed final at the conclusion of 

direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(1), (3). However, the PCRA provides exceptions to the timeliness 

requirement in certain circumstances. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). For a

petitioner to avail himself of one of the exceptions, he must file his petition 

within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9545(b)(2).

As long as this Court has jurisdiction over the matter, a legality of 

sentencing issue is reviewable and cannot be waived. Commonwealth v. 

Jones, 932 A.2d 179, 182 (Pa. Super. 2007). However, all claims cognizable 

under the PCRA, including a legality of sentencing issue, must be raised in a 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant has provided no argument on this issue. He has, therefore, waived 

it. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
J-S40009-18

- 4 -

timely filed PCRA Petition over which we have jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (“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.”).

Appellant’s Petition, filed more than 10 years after his Judgment of 

Sentence became final, is facially untimely.3 

In his first three issues, Appellant does not invoke or argue any 

timeliness exception for his claims challenging the legality of his sentence. 

See Appellant’s Brief at 31-34. Rather, Appellant baldly claims that he is 

entitled to PCRA relief because “a violation of the [C]onstitution of 

Pennsylvania and the United States [took] place.” Id. at 33-34. Such a bare 

allegation fails to satisfy any of the timeliness exceptions. Accordingly, we 

are without jurisdiction to review Appellant’s first three issues.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/26/18

____________________________________________

3 The period in which Appellant could have filed a timely PCRA Petition ended 

on July 3, 2007.