J-S59034- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court

. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

DAVID LENNITT, JR.,

Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

:
:
:
:
: : No. 914 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 7, 2014, In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP- 09

- CR -0000690-1990

BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY: STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2014

David Lennitt, Jr., (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered

January 7, 2014, dismissing his fourth petition filed pursuant to the Post

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). 1, 2

Generally, a PCRA petition must be filed within one year from the date a judgment becomes final. There are three except ions to this time requirement: (1) interference by governmen t officials in the presentation of the claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized constitutional right. When a p etitioner

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541- 9546.

2 Appellant’s second collateral petition, filed in June 1 1, 1999, was entitled “Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief Pursuant to A rticle I, Sect. 14 of the Pa. Const. and for PCRA relief pursuant to the PCRA Act. 4 2.Pa.C.S. 9542 et. seq. and consolidated Memorandum of law.” Despite its tit le, this Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the docu ment was a PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Lennitt , 996 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant does not dispute that the filing that gave rise to the instant appeal is, in fact, a PCRA pet ition, nor does he contest the applicability of the PCRA with respect to th is petition.J-S59034- 14

-2-

alleges and proves that one of these exceptions is met, the petition will be considered timely. A PCRA petition i nvoking one of these exceptions must be filed within 60 days of the date the claims could have been presented. The timeliness require ments of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and, accordin gly, a PCRA court cannot hear untimely petitions.

Commonwealth v. Brandon
, 51 A.3d 231, 233-234 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citations and quotations omitted).

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on

September 19, 1992, 60 days after the expiration of the time for seeking

discretionary review with the United States Supreme Co urt. See 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 9545(b)(3); (former) U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 20.1. The instant petition, filed on

August 23, 2012, is patently untimely. The PCRA cour t had no jurisdiction to

entertain Appe llant’s petition unless he pleaded and offered to prov e one of

the three statutory exceptions to the time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).

Appellant failed to do so. 3 Accordingly, the PCRA court properly dismissed his

petition.

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks Count y dismissing

Appellant’s petition filed under the PCRA is hereby A FFIRMED.

3 Although not mentioned in his brief to this Court, i n his PCRA petition, Appellant argued that the United States Supreme Cour t’s decision in Miller v. Alabama , 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) qualifies as an after-recogniz ed constitutional right exception to the PCRA timeliness r equirements. We disagree. In Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 2724 (U.S. 2014), our Supreme Court he ld that the constitutional right recognized in Miller does not apply retroactively. Moreover, the holding of Miller applied only to juvenile offenders. Id. at 2469. Appellant was nearly 23 years old at the time h e committed his crimes.J-S59034- 14

-3-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/10/2014