J-S13028-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ALLEN THEODORE CLAIBORNE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 798 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 26, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-67-CR-0005011-2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 27, 2020

Appellant, Allen Theodore Claiborne, appeals from the April 26, 2019 

Order entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas denying as untimely 

his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Because Appellant fails to plead and prove an 

exception to the PCRA time bar, we affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal.

On May 24, 2017, Appellant entered a negotiated, no contest plea to 

Robbery. Appellant did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal. 

Thus, his sentence became final on June 23, 2017. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(3) (providing “a judgment 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 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13028-20

- 2 -

for seeking the review”); Pa.R.A.P. 903 (providing that a notice of appeal 

“shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal 

is taken.”).

On January 8, 2019, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his 

first, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. The PCRA court appointed 

counsel for Appellant and on March 7, 2019, counsel filed a Notice of Intent 

Not to File an Amended PCRA Petition. PCRA Petition, 1/8/19, at 3-4.

On April 26, 2019, the PCRA court issued an Order denying Appellant’s 

PCRA Petition without a hearing.1

Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Appellant and the trial court 

both complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Whether the PCRA court’s decision to dismiss [Appellant]’s PCRA 

as untimely pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) without an 

evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion where a hearing 

was necessary for Defendant to present evidence establishing an 

exception to the timeliness requirement in that [Appellant]’s basis 

for filing the PCRA untimely was that he was either relying on 

counsel to file a post sentence motion or appeal, or was 

attempting to hire counsel to file an appeal or PCRA petition, and 

____________________________________________

1 We acknowledge that the PCRA court did not give Appellant notice of intent 

to dismiss or afford Appellant the opportunity to amend the PCRA Petition prior 

to dismissing it. See Pa.R.Crim.P 907(a); Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(B). However, 

Appellant has not challenged these oversights on appeal and, thus, he has 

waived these potential issues. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 

(Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that post-conviction movant waived appellate 

review of post-conviction court's failure to give movant notice of intent to 

dismiss or to afford movant opportunity to amend petition, by failing to 

challenge such failures on appeal). 
J-S13028-20

- 3 -

the denial of a hearing deprived [Appellant] of the opportunity to 

fully develop the basis for the timeliness exception?

Appellant’s Br. at 3. 

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). This 

Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are 

supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa. 

Super. 2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal 

conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 

2012).

In order to obtain relief under the PCRA, a petition must be timely filed. 

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 (providing jurisdictional requirements for the timely 

filing of a petition for post-conviction relief). A petition must be filed within 

one year from the date the judgment of sentence became final. 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(1). Appellant’s Petition, filed more than one year after his Judgment 

of Sentence became final, is facially untimely.

Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition, however, 

if an appellant pleads and proves one of the three exceptions set forth in 

Section 9545(b)(1). Any petition invoking a timeliness exception must be filed 

within one year of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S 

§ 9545(b)(2).
J-S13028-20

- 4 -

Instantly, Appellant fails to invoke any exception to the PCRA time-bar. 

In his PCRA Petition, Appellant argues that his plea counsel was ineffective for 

failing to inform the trial court judge that Appellant had mental health 

problems, failing to disclose a conflict of interest, and misinforming Appellant 

about the terms of the plea deal, rendering the plea illegal. PCRA Pet. at 4. 

Appellant’s claim that plea counsel was ineffective is not an exception 

to the PCRA time-bar. See Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849, 853-

54 (Pa. Super. 2016) (finding that a claim of plea counsel’s ineffectiveness 

does not satisfy an exception to the PCRA time bar). 

In conclusion, Appellant has not pleaded and proved the applicability of 

any of the PCRA’s timeliness exceptions and, therefore, we are without 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. The PCRA court properly 

dismissed Appellant’s Petition. The record supports the PCRA court’s findings 

and its Order is free of legal error. We, thus, affirm the denial of PCRA relief.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/27/2020