J-S10011-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RICHARD A. MCANULTY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 866 WDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 27, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-CR-0003108-2010

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: APRIL 15, 2024

Appellant, Richard A. McAnulty, appeals pro se from the June 27, 2023 

order dismissing, as untimely, his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction 

Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. We affirm. 

On July 18, 2011, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder, 

burglary, and three counts of violating the Uniform Firearms Act. On August 

9, 2011, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility 

of parole with a consecutive term of five to 10 years’ incarceration. This Court 

affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on May 23, 2013. 

Commonwealth v. McAnulty, 81 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Table). Our 

Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on 

December 19, 2013. Commonwealth v. McAnulty, 83 A.3d 168 (Pa. 2013).

Thereafter, 
J-S10011-24

- 2 -

[o]n March 21, 2014, [] Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition 

and counsel was appointed. On February 25, 2015, [counsel 

filed an amended PCRA petition on Appellant’s behalf].

***

On November 28, 2017, the [PCRA c]ourt filed an order denying 

PCRA relief. 

An appeal to th[is Court] from the denial of the PCRA petition 

was filed on December 20, 2017[.] ... The denial of [] 

Appellant’s PCRA [p]etition was affirmed by order dated July 7,

2018. [See Commonwealth v. McAnulty, 2018 WL 3598952 

*1 (Pa. Super. 2018)]. 

***

On July 10, 2019, [] Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus [relief] in the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania[.] On September 26, 2022, 

the District Court denied federal habeas corpus relief. 

On October 24, 2022, [] Appellant filed an appeal to the Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals from the denial of his habeas petition[.] 

Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability in that case 

was denied on May 31, 2023, with the Court finding that 

Appellant’s claims lacked merit or were procedurally defaulted 

with no grounds to excuse the default. 

On March 6, 2023, [] Appellant filed the PCRA petition which is 

subject to this appeal, raising the following issues: 

(1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to conduct an 

investigation into [] Appellant’s post-traumatic stress disorder 

(“PTSD”), depression, anxiety, stress and pain to support a 

defense of diminished capacity; (2) ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel in failing to secure an expert to testify about [] 

Appellant’s PTSD, depression, anxiety, stress and pain to 

support a defense of diminished capacity; (3) ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel in failing to conduct an investigation 

into the effects of withdrawal from medication for diabetes, 

depression, anxiety, and pain to support a defense of 

diminished capacity; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel 

in failing to present evidence of [] Appellant’s service in the 

United States Navy; and (5) ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel in failing to present evidence of [] Appellant’s mental 

and physical disabilities. 
J-S10011-24

- 3 -

On May 17, 2023, th[e PCRA c]ourt filed an opinion, order and 

notice of intention to dismiss [] Appellant’s PCRA petition 

[pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907]. 

On June 26, 2023, [] Appellant filed a rule to show cause and a 

motion to compel justice to be served. [The PCRA c]ourt 

construed these filings as [] Appellant’s response to the [court’s 

907 notice].

On June 27, 2023, [the PCRA c]ourt issued an order dismissing 

[] Appellant’s PCRA petition[. On July 5, 2023, Appellant filed 

an amended PCRA petition. That same day, the trial court 

entered an order dismissing Appellant’s amended PCRA petition 

as moot in light of its June 27, 2023 order].

PCRA Court Opinion, 9/18/23, at *2-*4 (unpaginated) (unnecessary 

capitalization and footnote omitted) (emphasis added). This timely appeal 

followed.

1

 

____________________________________________

1 On August 1, 2023, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

within 20 days. On August 17, 2023, Appellant filed another amended PCRA 

petition, which the PCRA court apparently construed as a Rule 1925(b) 

statement. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/18/23, at *4 (noting that Appellant 

filed a 1925(b) statement on August 17, 2023). Appellant’s August 17, 2023 

filing, however, does not comport with the requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4) (explaining that a concise statement must, inter alia, “set forth 

only those errors that the appellant intends to assert” and “concisely identify 

each error that the appellant intends to assert” on appeal). In general, the 

failure to file a proper Rule 1925(b) statement would result in the waiver of 

an appellant’s issues on appeal. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. 

Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224-225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en 

banc) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 

775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (explaining that an untimely concise statement waives 

all claims on appeal); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) 

(“[F]rom this date forward . . . [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial 

court orders them to file a [s]tatement of [errors] [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal 

pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be 

deemed waived.”). In this instance, however, and as will be discussed infra, 

this Court does not have jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeal. As such, we 

decline to dispose of Appellant’s appeal on this basis. 
J-S10011-24

- 4 -

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: 

1. [Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing Appellant’s 

petition?]

See generally Appellant’s Brief. 

“On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review is 

whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free 

of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 723 (Pa. 

2003). The issue of timeliness is dispositive in this appeal. “The timeliness 

requirement for PCRA petitions ‘is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature.’” 

Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 181 A.3d 359, 365 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en 

banc), appeal denied, 190 A.3d 1134 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted). “The 

question of whether a petition is timely raises a question of law, and where a 

petition[] raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our 

scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Pew, 189 A.3d 486, 488 

(Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

A PCRA petition is timely if it is “filed within one year of the date the 

judgment [of sentence] becomes final.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] 

judgment [of sentence] becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, 

including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking 

the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Appellant's judgment of sentence 

became final on March 19, 2014, 90 days after the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court denied allocatur and the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the 
J-S10011-24

- 5 -

United States Supreme Court elapsed. See U.S.Sup.Ct. Rule 13. As such, 

Appellant had until February 19, 2015, or one-year after his judgment of 

sentence became final, to file a timely PCRA petition. Appellant, however, did 

not file the current PCRA petition until March 6, 2023, almost 10 years after 

his judgment of sentence became final. Accordingly, Appellant's PCRA petition 

is patently untimely.

An untimely PCRA petition may be considered if one of the following 

three exceptions applies:

(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.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). If an exception applies, a PCRA petition may be 

considered if it is filed “within one year of the date the claim could have been 

presented.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). 

Herein, Appellant makes no attempt to invoke, much less plead and 

prove, one of the enumerated exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar. To the 

contrary, Appellant raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

Because Appellant's petition was untimely and because he failed to properly 
J-S10011-24

- 6 -

invoke an exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirements, neither the trial 

court nor this Court has jurisdiction over the instant claims for collateral relief. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition.

Order affirmed. 

DATE: 04/15/2024