J

- S17020

- 24

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CRAIG ANDRUS

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2924 EDA 2023 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 28, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0005092

- 2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2024 Appellant, Craig Andrus, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his pro se Petition for Modification/Reconsideration of Sentence, which the court treated as a serial untimely petition for collateral relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)

. 1 We affirm

. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On June 4, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to third degree murder and persons not to possess firearms

. The court imposed the agreed

upon aggregate sentence of 111⁄2 to 23 years of imprisonment . This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on September 9, 2019

. See Commonwealth v. Andrus , 221 A.3d 1236 (Pa.Super. 2019) (unpublished

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S17020

- 24

- 2

-

memorandum). Appellant did not petition our Supreme Court for allowance of appeal. On December 26, 2019, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel, who filed a Turner / Finley 2 no - merit letter and motion to withdraw on February 29, 2020. The court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on March 4, 2020. On March 18, 2020, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and denied PCRA relief ; this Court affirmed the denial of PCRA relief on June 10, 2021. See Commonwealth v. Andrus , 258 A.3d 516 (Pa.Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum). On June 14, 2023, Appellant pro se filed the instant “Petition/Motion for Modification/Reconsideration of Sentence ,” requesting a reduction of his sentence. The court treated Appellant’s filing a s a n untimely serial PCRA petition and issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 90 7 notice on August 1, 2023. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (explaining that PCRA shall be sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for same purpose ). On September 28, 2023 , the court denied PCRA relief. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on October 10, 2023. The court did not order, and Appellant did not file, a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. Appellant raises two issues for our review: Did [plea counsel] coerce [ Appellant ] into pleading guilty? Did [ direct appeal and PCRA counsel provide ineffective

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Commonwealth v. Turner , 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) ( en banc )

.J

- S17020

- 24

- 3

- assistance ] in violation of the 6 th Amendment ? (Appellant’s Brief at 4). Preliminarily, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. Commonwealth v. Turner , 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied , 625 Pa. 649, 91 A.3d 162 (2014). A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is “final” at the conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seek ing review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The statutory exceptions to the PCRA time

- bar allow very limited circumstances to excuse the late filing of a petition

. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (i

- iii)

. Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on October 9, 2019, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for allowance of appeal with

our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) ( allowing 30 days to file petition for allowance of appeal) ; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Appellant ’s
current PCRA petition , filed on June 14, 2023 , is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant did not acknowledge the untimeliness of his petition or assert any timeliness exception. Se e id. Thus, the court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely

. We further observe that Appellant raises new claims on appeal for the first time related to the ineffective assistance of prior counsel. ( See Appellant’s Brief at 10

- 13). See also Pa.R.A.P . 302(a) (stating issues notJ

- S17020

- 24

- 4

-

raised in court below are waived and cannot be raised for first time on appeal). Notably, Appellant does not assert any exception to the PCRA time

- bar in connection with these new claims. Thus, even if Appellant had properly preserved these claims in his petition below, the court would have lacked jurisdiction to consider them. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm. Order affirmed.

Date: 6/28/2024