J-S86041-16

_____________________________

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEVEN A. LUKOWICH

Appellant No. 919 WDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 8, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0001252-2002

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2016

Appellant, Steven A. Lukowich, appeals pro se from the order entered 

in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his serial 

petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 9541-9546. On August 19, 2003, a jury convicted Appellant of two 

counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) and indecent 

assault, and one count each of aggravated indecent assault of a child less 

than 13, endangering the welfare of children (“EWOC”), and corruption of 

minors. The court sentenced Appellant on November 26, 2003, to an 

aggregate term of 143⁄4 to 39 years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed the 

judgment of sentence on May 26, 2005, and our Supreme Court denied 

allowance of appeal on September 21, 2005. See Commonwealth v. 
J-S86041-16

- 2 -

Lukowich, 875 A.2d 1169 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 584 Pa. 706, 

885 A.2d 41 (2005). On March 21, 2006, Appellant timely filed his first 

PCRA petition, which the court denied on June 22, 2006. This Court affirmed 

the order denying relief on March 8, 2007, and our Supreme Court denied 

allowance of appeal on August 21, 2007. See Commonwealth v. S.A.L., 

927 A.2d 653 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 739, 929 A.2d 1162 

(2007). On October 29, 2007, Appellant filed his second PCRA petition, 

which the PCRA court denied on December 11, 2007. Appellant sought no 

further review. On May 4, 2016, Appellant filed the current, serial pro se

PCRA petition. The court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on May 16, 2016; 

Appellant responded pro se on June 6, 2016. The court dismissed 

Appellant’s petition as untimely on June 9, 2016. On June 22, 2016, 

Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant 

on June 24, 2016 to file a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on July 8, 

2016. 

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 deemed final at the conclusion of direct review or 

at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). 
J-S86041-16

- 3 -

The three statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness provisions allow for 

very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be 

excused; and a petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a 

petition within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2). 

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on December 

20, 2005, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari

with the United States Supreme Court. See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13 (allowing 90 

days to file petition for writ of certiorari). Appellant filed the current petition 

on May 4, 2016, which is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). See also Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 

A.3d 462 (Pa.Super. 2013) (stating: “[A]lthough illegal sentencing issues 

cannot be waived, they still must be presented in a timely PCRA petition”). 

Appellant attempts to invoke the “new constitutional right” exception to the 

PCRA time bar by citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. 

U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), and the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Wolfe, ___ 

Pa. ___, 140 A.3d 651 (2016). Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, has held that Alleyne or its progeny 

apply retroactively. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 

(Pa.Super. 2014) (holding that even if Alleyne announced new 

constitutional right, neither our Supreme Court nor United States Supreme 
J-S86041-16

- 4 -

Court has held that Alleyne applies retroactively, which is fatal to 

Appellant’s effort to satisfy “new constitutional right” exception to timeliness 

requirements of PCRA). See also Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 

(Pa.Super. 2015) (explaining Alleyne does not invalidate illegal mandatory 

minimum sentence when claim was presented in untimely PCRA petition); 

Commonwealth v. Washington, ___ Pa. ___, 142 A.3d 810 (2016) 

(holding Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to 

challenge to mandatory minimum sentence as “illegal”). Therefore, 

Appellant’s petition remains time barred, and the PCRA court lacked 

jurisdiction to review it. See Turner, supra. Accordingly, we affirm. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/8/2016