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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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 agreedupon 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Commonwealth v. Andrus, 221 A.3d 1236 (Pa.Super. 2019) (unpublished 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/Finley2 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Andrus, 258 A.3d 516 (Pa.Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum).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 as an untimely serial PCRA 

petition and issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 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 6th 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 seeking 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. See 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 not 
J-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