### J-S81033-16
NON

### -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

1 IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. CHARLES RASHAWN BROWN 

### Appellant No. 137 EDA 2016 Appeal 

### fromthe PCRAOrder December 14, 2015 In the CourtofCommon Pleas 

### of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-

### 0008440-2008 BEFORE: BOWES, J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: 

### FILED NOVEMBER

### 08,

### 2016 Appellant appeals 

### pro se 

### from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas 

### of Philadelphia County dismissing his 

### petition filed 

### pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA

### "), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We 

### affirm. The 

### relevant facts and procedural 

### history are as follows:1 On October 23, 2008, 

### Appellant entered a negotiated 

### guilty plea to the charges of aggravated assault, conspiracy,

### firearms not to be carried 

### without a license,

* FormerJusticespecially assigned to

### the SuperiorCourt.

1 The record provided to this Court is sparse. As 

### court-appointed PCRA counsel indicated in the lower court, 

### "the Quarter Sessions file was misplaced, and the clerks did 

### their best to 

### reconstruct the 

### file." PCRA Counsel's No

### -Merit Letter, filed 

### 10/17/15, at 1. 

### Appellant has raised no issue concerning 

### the accuracy of the record provided to 

### this Court and has not

### soughtto 

### supplementthe record.

### J-S81033-16
and possession 

### of an 

### instrument of crime.2 On 

### that same date, in accordance 

### with the plea 

### agreement, Appellant was sentenced to an 

### aggregate of

### fiveyearsto tenyears in prison, to be followed by seven years ofprobation. 

### Appellant did notfile 

### timely post-sentence motions nor a 

### direct appeal. On May 18, 2012, 

### Appellant filed a 

### pro se PCRA petition,3 and the PCRA

### court appointed counsel. On October 17, 2015, counsel filed a 

### motion to 

### withdraw his 

### representation, as well as a 

### Turner/Finley4 no

### -merit letter. The PCRA 

### court provided 

### Appellant with notice of its 

### intent to dismiss the 

### petition, and 

### after receiving no response, by 

### orderentered on December 14, 2015, the PCRA 

### court dismissed 

### Appellant's PCRA 

### petition. The PCRA 

### court also granted counsel's 

### petition to 

### withdraw his 

### representation. This 

### timely pro se appeal followed. The PCRA 

### court did not 

### direct Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b) 

### statement; however, the PCRA 

### court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(a) opinion explaining 

### thatAppellant's PCRA 

### petition was 

### untimely filed 

### without meeting anyofthe

### timeliness exceptions.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 903, 6106, and 907, respectively.
3

### Although Appellant's pro se PCRA 

### petition was docketed on May 21, 2012, the prison envelope in which 

### Appellant's petition was mailed bears a 

### time stamp of May 18, 2012. 

### Accordingly, pursuantto 

### the prisoner mailbox rule, we deem 

### Appellant's instant PCRA 

### petition to have been filed on May 18, 2012. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa.Super. 

### 2007) (discussing the 

### prisoner mailbox rule). 4 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Turner, 518 Pa. 

### 491, 544 A.2d 927 

### (1988), and 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (enbanc). 

## -2

### J-S81033-16 Preliminarily, we 

### must determine 

### whether Appellant's instant PCRA 

### petition was 

### timely filed. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa.Super. 

### 2000). "Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA 

### relief is clear; we are 

### limited to 

### determining whether the PCRA 

### court's findings are supported by the record and 

### without legal 

### error." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa.Super. 2008) 

### (quotation and 

### quotation marks

### omitted). Pennsylvania law makes it clear 

### that no 

### court has

### jurisdiction to hear
an 

### untimely PCRA 

### petition. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157 

### (2003). The 

### most recentamendments to

### the PCRA, 

### effective January 19, 1996, provide 

### that a PCRA 

### petition, including a second or subsequent 

### petition, shall befiled 

### within one 

### yearofthe date the 

### underlying 

### judgmentbecomes

### final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1). A

### judgment isdeemed final 

### "atthe conclusion of 

### direct review, including 

### discretionary review in the Supreme Courtofthe United States andthe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the 

### expiration of the 

### time for seeking 

### review." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(3). The

### three

### statutoryexceptionsto the

### timeliness provisions inthe PCRA allow

### for very limited circumstances under which the late 

### filing of a 

### petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1). To invoke an 

### exception, a 

### petition mustallege and the 

### petitioner mustprove: (i) the 

### failure to raise a claim 

### previously was the result of 

### interference by 

### government officials 

### with the 

# -3-

### J-S81033-16 presentation ofthe claim in 

### violation ofthe 

### Constitution orthe law of

### this Commonwealth or

### the Constitution or law ofthe United 

### States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the 

### petitioner and could not have been ascertained bythe exerciseofdue 

### diligence; or 

### (iii) the 

### right asserted is a 

### constitutional right 

### that was recognized bythe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 

### after the 

### time period provide in this section and has been held by

### thatcourtto apply 

### retroactively. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). "We emphasize

### that it is the 

### petitioner who bears the burdento allege and prove

### that one of the 

### timeliness exceptions applies." 

### Commonwealth
v. 

### Marshall, 596 Pa. 587, 596, 947 A.2d 714, 719 

### (2008) (citation omitted). In the case before us, 

### Appellant was sentenced on October 23, 2008, and he filed 

### neither a 

### timely post-sentence motion nor a 

### direct appeal. 

### Accordingly, his

### judgment of sentence became final on Monday, November 24, 2008,5 upon 

### theexpiration of

### the

### thirty-day period

### forfiling an appeal to this Court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 

### 903(a). Accordingly, he had one 

### year from 

### that date, or until November 24, 2009, to file a 

### timely PCRA 

### petition. See42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b). However, 

### Appellant did notfile

5The

### thirtieth day 

### aftersentencing, November 22, 2008, fell on a 

### Saturday, thus extending the time 

### for appealing to 

### this Court to Monday, November 24, 2008. 

### See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. 

## -4

### J-S81033-16
his PCRA 

### petition until May 18, 2012, and 

### thus, it is 

### patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1). Nevertheless, 

### Appellantsuggests

### that his sentence is illegal,6 and

### thus, he is not 

### subject to the PCRA's 

### time restrictions. However, our Supreme Court has held 

### specifically 

### that, 

### "[a]lthough legality of sentence is always 

### subject to review 

### within the PCRA, 

### [legality of sentencing] claims 

### must still 

### first satisfy the PCRA's 

### time limits or one of the exceptions 

### thereto." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 737A.2d 214, 223 

### (1999). In the casesub

### judice, Appellant has not invoked anyofthe applicable exceptions to the PCRA, and 

### therefore, we agree 

### with the PCRA 

### court

### that Appellant's instant petition was 

### untimelyfiled. 

### Affirmed.

6 We note 

### that Appellant's pro se 

### brief falls well below the standards delineated in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

### See Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2111(a). 

### "[A]lthough this Court is 

### willing to construe liberally 

### materials filed by a pro se 

### litigant, pro se 

### status generally confers no special 

### benefit upon an 

### appellant. Accordingly, a 

### pro se 

### litigant must complywith the procedural rules set 

### forth in the Pennsylvania Rules 

### of 

### Court." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251

### -52 (Pa.Super. 

### 2003) 

### (citations 

### omitted). Although we could quash or dismiss this appeal 

### for Appellant's failure to 

### conform 

### materially to the 

### requirements set 

### forth in our Rules of 

### Appellate Procedure, 

### see Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2101, we will address 

### Appellant's 

### argument regarding the

### timeliness of his PCRA 

### petition to the 

### extent we can discern it. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Adams, 882 A.2d 

### 496, 498 (Pa.Super. 

### 2005) (declining to quash appeal despite numerous 

### substantial defects in 

### appellant's brief). 

## -5

### J-S81033-16

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary
Date: 

### 11/8/2016



## -6