J-S90044-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

HYQUAWNN BAKEERE WALLACE

Appellant No. 1921 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 17, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0002178-2005

BEFORE: OTT, J., SOLANO, J. AND JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2016

HyQuawnn Bakerree Wallace (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the 

order entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which 

denied his third petition filed for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. 

On February 6, 2006, a jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault, 

burglary, three counts of conspiracy, nine counts of simple assault, and nine 

counts of robbery. On March 6, 2006, the court sentenced Appellant to an 

aggregate term of 251⁄2 to 51 years’ incarceration. On January 5, 2007, this 

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S90044-16

- 2 -

Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Appellant did not file a 

petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court.

On February 19, 2010, Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition. 

The PCRA court appointed counsel and subsequently dismissed his petition 

on July 20, 2010. This Court affirmed the dismissal order on July 22, 2011. 

On December 28, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s 

petition for allowance of appeal. On March 26, 2012, Appellant filed another 

PCRA petition, which the PCRA court denied on May 2, 2012. On May 24, 

2012, Appellant appealed the PCRA order, and this Court dismissed the 

appeal on December 24, 2012 because Appellant failed to file a brief.

On January 25, 2016, Appellant filed the present PCRA petition, his 

third. On April 26, 2016, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to 

dismiss the petition without a hearing. On May 9, 2016, Appellant filed a 

response to the court’s notice, and the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s 

petition on May 17, 2016. On June 6, 2016, Appellant filed a timely notice 

of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

WAS [APPELLANT’S] 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

VIOLATED DUE TO A LAYERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE 

OF COUNSEL ARISING FROM ONE’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW 

P.A.R.A.P. 2119(F)?

SINCE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS A RIGHT GRANTED BY 

THE 6TH AMENDMENT[, HAVE] THE [APPELLANT’S] 

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEEN VIOLATED DUE TO A 

LAYERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

ARISING OUT OF THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS?
J-S90044-16

- 3 -

IS 42 P.A.C.S.A. § 9545 UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT 

PREVENTS THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND ANY 

COURT THEREAFTER, JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND TREAT 

THE VIOLATIONS TO [APPELLANT’S] CONSTITUTIONAL 

RIGHTS?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must determine 

whether his PCRA petition was timely. The timeliness of a PCRA petition 

implicates the jurisdiction of both this Court and the PCRA court. 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44, 52 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal 

denied, 50 A.3d 121 (Pa.2012). “Pennsylvania law makes clear that no 

court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition.” Id. To “accord 

finality to the collateral review process[,]” the PCRA “confers no authority 

upon [appellate courts] to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA 

timebar[.]” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa.2011). With 

respect to jurisdiction under the PCRA, this Court has further explained: 

The most recent amendments to the PCRA...provide a 

PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, 

shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying 

judgment becomes final. A judgment is deemed 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. 

Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Pa.Super.2010) 

(citations and quotations omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 1210 (Pa.2011); 

see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). This Court may review a PCRA petition filed 
J-S90044-16

- 4 -

more than one year after the judgment of sentence becomes final only if the 

claim falls within one of the following three statutory exceptions, which the 

petitioner must plead and prove:

(i) the failure to raise the claim 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. § 9545(b)(1). These “exceptions to the time bar must be pled in 

the PCRA petition, and may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” 

Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa.Super.2007). Further, 

if a petition pleads one of these exceptions, the petition will not be 

considered unless it is “filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have 

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

Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on February 5, 

2007, when his time period for filing a petition for allowance of appeal with 

our Supreme Court expired. Thus, Appellant had until February 5, 2008 to 

file a timely PCRA petition. The present petition, filed January 25, 2016, is 
J-S90044-16

- 5 -

patently untimely. Appellant has failed to plead and prove any of the 

enumerated exceptions to the PCRA time bar.2

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/8/2016

____________________________________________

2 Appellant claims that the PCRA and its time limitations are unconstitutional. 

To qualify for the constitutional right exception to the PCRA time bar, 

Appellant must plead and prove that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or 

the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized a constitutional right 

and has held that right to apply retroactively. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). 

Appellant fails to plead and prove any such right.