J-S21041-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CARLOS VALENTINE,

Appellant No. 2874 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order September 11, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-46-CR-0003521-2011

BEFORE: BOWES, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 08, 2015

Appellant, Carlos Valentine, appeals pro se from the order dismissing 

his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546 as untimely.1 We affirm.

We summarize the procedural history of this case as follows. On May 

30, 2012, after a non-jury trial, the court convicted Appellant of one count 

each of aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, and 

disorderly conduct, and two counts each of simple assault and harassment 

for his participation in a fight at the corner of Levering Street and Locust 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We note that the PCRA court’s order is dated September 10, 2014 and was 

filed on September 11, 2014. Therefore, we will refer to it by its filed date 

and have corrected the caption accordingly.
J-S21041-15

- 2 -

Avenue in Ardmore, Pennsylvania on March 19, 2011.2 The sentencing court 

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of not less than three-and-onehalf nor more than ten years’ incarceration on August 15, 2012. Appellant 

did not file a direct appeal.

Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition on May 20, 2014. On May 

29, 2014, the PCRA court appointed counsel. PCRA counsel filed a no-merit 

letter dated August 18, 2014 and requested to withdraw pursuant to 

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

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On August 20, 2014, 

the PCRA court granted counsel’s application to withdraw and notified 

Appellant of its intention to dismiss his PCRA petition without a hearing 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. Appellant filed an 

objection on September 9, 2014. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s 

petition as untimely on September 11, 2014.3 Appellant timely appealed on 

October 3, 2014.4 While this appeal was pending, Appellant filed a motion 

seeking remand for a PCRA court hearing. This Court denied the motion 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(2), 2705, 5503(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), and 

2709(a)(1), respectively.

3

The PCRA court explained that because Appellant’s petition was untimely, it 

“had no jurisdiction to review the merits of the underlying ineffectiveness of 

counsel allegations.” (PCRA Court Opinion, 10/23/14, at 4).

4

Pursuant to the PCRA court’s order, Appellant timely filed a Rule 1925(b) 

statement on October 17, 2014. The court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion 

on October 23, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S21041-15

- 3 -

without prejudice to Appellant’s raising the issue in his brief. (See Per

Curiam Order, 12/23/14).

Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Whether the trial 

court erred in dismissing the Appellant’s current PCRA petition[?]” 

(Appellant’s Brief, at 3) (capitalization omitted).

Our standard of review is well-settled:

[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of 

fact to determine whether they are supported by the record, and 

reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are free 

from legal error. The scope of review is limited to the findings of 

the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light 

most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level.

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 775 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(citation omitted).

We also note that a PCRA petitioner is not automatically 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We review the PCRA court’s 

decision dismissing a petition without a hearing for an abuse of 

discretion.

[T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition is not absolute. It is within the 

PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing if 

the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no 

support either in the record or other evidence. It is 

the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to 

examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in 

light of the record certified before it in order to 

determine if the PCRA court erred in its 

determination that there were no genuine issues of 

material fact in controversy and in denying relief 

without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

* * *
J-S21041-15

- 4 -

Before we may address the merits of Appellant’s 

arguments, we must first consider the timeliness of Appellant’s 

PCRA petition because it implicates the jurisdiction of this Court 

and the PCRA court. Pennsylvania law makes clear that when a 

PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor the trial court 

has jurisdiction over the petition. The period for filing a PCRA 

petition is not subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling; 

instead, the time for filing a PCRA petition can be extended only 

if the PCRA permits it to be extended[.] This is to accord finality 

to the collateral review process. However, 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 the petition, set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), 

and (iii), are met.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992-93 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted).

The PCRA states in relevant part:

(b) Time for filing petition.—

(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second 

or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the 

date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition 

alleges and the petitioner proves that:

(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 this 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 right 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-S21041-15

- 5 -

(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in 

paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date the 

claim could have been presented.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) and (2).

Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on September 

14, 2012. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Therefore, in order to comply 

with the filing requirements of the PCRA, Appellant’s petition had to be filed 

by September 16, 2013.5 Because the underlying petition was filed on May 

20, 2014, it is facially untimely and the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to 

review it unless Appellant pleaded and proved one of the statutory 

exceptions to the time bar under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).

Appellant has failed to address his petition’s untimeliness or plead any 

facts that could invoke any of the statutory exceptions. (See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 3-5; Statement of Errors, 10/17/14). Accordingly, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition. See Miller, supra at 992-

93.

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 We note that September 14, 2013 fell on a Saturday.
J-S21041-15

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/8/2015