J-S13042-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. STEVEN WAYNE BENDER Appellant No. 1637 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered October 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No: CP-26-CR-0000801-2000
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUNDY, and STABILE, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 17, 2015 Steven Wayne Bender appeals from the dismissal of h is sixth PCRA 1 petition as untimely. We affirm. On the night of May 13, 2000, Appellant killed his estranged wife’s boyfriend by shooting him three times with a 12-gau ge shotgun. See Commonwealth v. Bender , No. 1319 WDA 2001, unpublished memorandum, at 1-2 (filed Dec. 31, 2002). Appellan t was convicted of, among other crimes, second degree murder 2 and sentenced to life without parole followed by a term of years. We affirmed th e judgment on direct appeal. See id. Appellant thereafter unsuccessfully assailed his conviction

____________________________________________
1 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-4 6.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b).J-S13042-15

- 2 -

in state 3 and federal 4 court. On August 28, 2014, Appellant filed the in stant PCRA petition, his sixth. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s the petition as untimely. “The filing mandates of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and are strictly construed. The question of whether a peti tion is timely raises a question of law.” Commonwealth v. Taylor , 65 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, “ our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review plenary.” Id. The PCRA requires that all petitions be filed withi n one year of the date on which the judgment of sentence became final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) and (3). That date in this case is January 30, 200 3, one year after

____________________________________________ 3 See Commonwealth v. Bender , 876 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2005) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming denial of first PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Bender , 964 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming denial of second PCRA petiti on), appeal denied , 971 A.2d 488 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. Bender , 22 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2010) (judgment order) (affirming denial of third PCRA petition); Commonwealth v. Bender , 47 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming denial of fourth PCRA petiti on); Commonwealth v. Bender , 53 A.3d 924 (Pa. Super. 2012) (unpublished memora ndum) (affirming denial of motion for post-conviction DNA testing); Commonwealth v. Bender , 82 A.3d 455 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming denial of fifth PCRA petitio n).

4 Bender v. Wydner , No. 05-998, 2006 WL 1788312 (W.D. Pa. June 28, 2006) (denying petition for writ of habeas corpus ); Bender v. Wydner , No. 05-998, 2013 WL 3776746 (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2013) (d enying motion for relief from judgment), appeal dismissed , No. 13-1174 (3d Cir. June 10, 2013), cert. denied sub nom. , Bender v. Walsh , 134 S. Ct. 2303 (2014).J-S13042-15

- 3 -

Appellant’s time to petition for allowance of appea l to our Supreme Court expired. Appellant’s petition plainly does not mee t the time bar. Appellant attempts to invoke the “governmental inte rference” exception to the time bar, under which PCRA petitio ners have 60 days to file a petition upon showing that “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 this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i). According to Appellant, the form he utilized to fil e pro se his first PCRA petition (Department of Corrections Form DC-198 “Mo tion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief”) did not include a st atement of jurisdiction, which deprived the PCRA court of subject-matter jur isdiction. Appellant argues the defective form and the PCRA court’s acce ptance of it constituted governmental interference with his ability to file a first PCRA. Appellant cites no pertinent authority supporting h is convoluted argument. As the PCRA court recognized, Appellant’ s argument is “so lacking in merit to be frivolous.” PCRA Court Opin ion, 9/16/14, at 1. We agree. A PCRA petition does not need to include a “statement of jurisdiction.” See Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A). The presence or lack thereof has nothing to do with a PCRA court’s subject-matter ju risdiction or the governmental-interference exception to the PCRA’ ti me bar. Appellant’s claim is indeed frivolous. His sixth PCRA petition is untimely, and the PCRA court properly dismissed it.J-S13042-15

- 4 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/17/2015