J

- S48028

- 18

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

VINCENT THOMAS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 369 EDA 2018 Appeal from the PCRA Order December 28, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 23

- CR

- 0006924

- 1981, CP

- 23

- CR

- 0006925

- 1981

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and PLATT*, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED AUGUST 30, 2018 Vincent Thomas (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order denying as untimely his serial petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

– 9546. We affirm

. In 1982, A ppellant was convicted of numerous crimes including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, burglary, terroristic threats, and possessing an instrument of
crime. On October 1, 1982 , he was sentenced to 18 to 36 years of imprisonment. This Court affirmed Appellant’s sentence on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Thomas , 477 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 1984). Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final in June 1984, when time expired for him to seek review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Thomas , 497 EDA 2015 ( Pa. Super. Oct

. 9, 2015) (unpublished )

.J

- S48028

- 18

- 2

-

Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on July 19 , 2017. 1 T he
PCRA court denied the petition as untimely on December 28, 2017

. Appellant filed this appeal

. 2 He states his issue s for review as follows : 1. Is it legal error and [a] denial of 14 th Amendment Due Process to dismiss a petition without prejudice to protect rights and th[e]n later refuse the legal rights protected by said dismissal?
2. Is it error of law and abandonment by counsel where counsel performs deficiently[,] denying fair tria l and effective assistance guaranteed by [the] 14 th Amendment Due Process Clause?
3. Is it legal error for [the PCRA] court to fail to address [the] double jeopardy issue involving legality of sentence and was counsel ineffective for not challenging multi plicitous [sic] of offenses? Appellant ’ s Brief at 2

. O ur standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is “ whether the PCRA court’ s determination is supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error. We grant great deference to the PCRA court’s findings, and we will not disturb those findings unless they are unsupported by the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Holt , 175 A.3d 1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Before we reach the merit s of a petitioner’s claim, S ection 9545 of the PCRA requires that “[a]ny petition under this subchapter, including

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Appellant filed an amended pro se petition on September 1, 2017.

2 T he PCRA court and Appellant have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925

.J

- S48028

- 18

- 3

-

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). T he tim eliness requirement of the PCRA is “mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.” Commonwealth v. McKeever , 947 A.2d 782, 784

- 785 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing omitted ). Therefore, “no court may disregard , alter , or create equitable exceptions to the timeliness r equirement in order to reach the substance of a petition er’s arguments .” Id. at 785. Although the timeliness requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, “an untimely petition may be received when the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that any of the three limited exceptions to the time for filing set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), is met.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez , 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). The three exceptions to the timeliness requirement are: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of

interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of thi s 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 r ight 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.J

- S48028

- 18

- 4

-

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)

- (iii). A petition invoking an exception “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). This is Appellant’s sixth appeal from the denial of post

- conviction relief.
See Commonwealth v. Thomas , 2983 EDA 2016 (June 29, 2017) (unpublished); Commonwealth v. Thomas , 497 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Oct. 9, 2015) (unpublished ) ; Commonwealth v. Thomas , 2139 EDA 2012 (April 4, 2013) (unpublished); Commonwealth v. Thomas , 836 EDA 1999 (July 18, 2000) (unpublis hed); Commonwealth v. Thomas , 00775 Philadelphia 1989 (Pa. Super. May 14, 1990) (unpublished). It is undisputed that the underlying PCRA petition is untimely. Appellant appears to invoke the newly

discovered facts exception to the time bar by referenc ing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ’s decision in Commonwealth v. Burton , 158 A.3d 618 , 638 (Pa. 2017) (ho ld ing that pro se prisoners are not subject to the presumption that information which is of public record cannot be deemed “unknown” for purposes of subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) )

. However, Appellant fails to articulate his discovery of any new evidence of public record, or otherwise explain how
Burton applies to his c laim s of PCRA court error. Rather, Appellant recycl es his prior collateral claims

– tha t he was denied competent assistance of counsel and was illegally sentenced

– with intermittent cites to Burton

. See Appellant’s Brief at 6

- 24. Moreover, Appellant’s argument is overwhelminglyJ

- S48028

- 18

- 5

-

incoheren t

. I

d. For these reasons , we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant’s petition is untimely and he is not entitled to relief. Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/30/18