J-S17003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RYAN PHYLLIP BOWERS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1390 WDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 19, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-43-CR-0001526-2014

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: June 2, 2023

Ryan Phyllip Bowers appeals from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Mercer County, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, 

we affirm.

We previously summarized the factual history of this case as follows:

[Bowers] was arrested and charged with several crimes stemming 

from the murder of Michael Anthony Johns[]. [Bowers] and 

Patrick McCamey arrived at Johns’ home with the intention of 

committing a burglary/robbery. Upon arrival, an altercation 

ensued, ultimately resulting in Johns’ death. Both [Bowers] and 

McCamey were stabbed by Johns during the struggle. . . . 

[Bowers] proceeded to a jury trial, and on [May 18], 201[5,] was 

found guilty of . . . [,] inter alia, robbery, burglary, two counts of 

second-degree murder, and third-degree murder. . . . On 

November 25, 201[5], [Bowers] was sentenced to [] concurrent 

terms of life imprisonment for each count of second-degree 

murder and concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10-20 years for 

third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy[,] respectively.
J-S17003-23

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Bowers, 159 A.3d 603 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Table).

We affirmed Bowers’ judgment of sentence on November 30, 2016, see 

id., and our Supreme Court denied Bowers’ petition for allowance of appeal 

on May 11, 2017. See id., appeal denied, 169 A.3d 520 (Pa. 2017).

On September 15, 2017, Bowers filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, his 

first. Bowers was appointed counsel, who filed two amended petitions in which 

he raised challenges to trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to object “to 

the Commonwealth introducing [Bowers’] confession[,] wherein [Bowers] 

indicated he was ‘on paper[,]’” and challenged the legality of Bowers’ 

sentence. See Commonwealth v. Bowers, 203 A.3d 363 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(Table). Ultimately, on April 16, 2018, the PCRA court granted in part, and 

denied in part, Bowers’ PCRA petition. In particular, the PCRA court granted

relief on Bowers’ sentencing claim and vacated his judgment of sentence, but 

denied Bowers’ petition with respect to trial counsel’s purported 

ineffectiveness. On May 4, 2018, the trial court resentenced Bowers to one 

term of life imprisonment, and to serve a concurrent term of five to 20 years 

for his criminal conspiracy conviction. Id. Bowers filed an untimely appeal, 

which this Court quashed.1 Id.

On December 23, 2020, more than 18 months later, Bowers filed a 

second pro se PCRA petition in which he alleged that prior PCRA counsel was 

____________________________________________

1 On June 4, 2018, Bowers had appealed from the April 16, 2018 order 

granting in part, and denying in part, his PCRA petition. Id. For that reason, 

this Court concluded that Bower’s appeal was untimely and quashed his 

appeal. See id.
J-S17003-23

- 3 -

ineffective for failing to file a timely notice of appeal from the order denying

his first PCRA petition. Ultimately, the PCRA court dismissed the petition as 

untimely. Bowers filed a timely pro se notice of appeal, and the PCRA court 

appointed counsel, who determined that the PCRA petition was untimely and 

sought to withdraw the appeal and from representation. On November 21, 

2021, this Court granted counsel’s request to withdraw and discontinued the 

appeal.

On March 28, 2022, Bowers filed a third pro se PCRA Petition titled 

“Motion for Reinstatement of Appellant Rights nunc pro tunc” that the PCRA 

court denied. Shortly thereafter, Bowers filed a motion for reconsideration

that the PCRA also denied.

On September 22, 2022, Bowers filed his fourth pro se PCRA Petition, 

the instant petition. The PCRA court dismissed the petition on October 19, 

2022.

2 Bowers filed a timely notice of appeal.3

____________________________________________

2 The order is dated October 18, 2022, but was not entered on the docket until 

October 19, 2022.

3 Bowers did not file his notice of appeal until November 21, 2022, three days 

late. On December 19, 2022, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why 

Bowers’ appeal should not be quashed as untimely. Bowers filed a Response, 

in which he attached a copy of his prisoner cash slip. This Court discharged 

the Rule to Show Cause and deferred the issue to the merits panel.

Bowers is pro se and incarcerated and, therefore, may benefit from the 

“prisoner mailbox rule.” See Pa.R.A.P. 121(f) (“A pro se filing submitted by a 

person incarcerated in a correctional facility is deemed filed as of the date of 

the prison postmark or the date the filing was delivered to the prison 

authorities for purposes of mailing as documented by a properly executed 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S17003-23

- 4 -

Bowers now raises the following claims on appeal:

(1) [Trial counsel was ineffective for] not objecting when the 

Commonwealth played a taped recording in which [Bowers] stated 

he was “on paper.”

(2) [Trial counsel was ineffective for] not asking for a curative 

instruction when the Commonwealth played a recording in which 

[Bowers] stated he was “on paper.”

(3) Trial counsel was ineffective for] not moving for mistrial as 

requested by [Bowers] when the Commonwealth played a taped 

recording of [Bowers] stating he was “on paper.”

Brief for Appellant, at 2 (unnumbered).

“On appeal from the denial of relief under the [PCRA], the standard of 

review is whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record 

and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 182 (Pa. 

____________________________________________

prisoner cash slip or other reasonably verifiable evidence.”). The cash slip 

indicates that Bowers delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities on 

November 15, 2022. Therefore, Bowers’ notice of appeal is considered to be 

timely filed.

Moreover, we note that the record does not reflect that the PCRA court’s order 

dismissing Bowers’ PCRA petition was ever served on Bowers. See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c) (trial court docket “shall contain . . . the date of 

service of the order or court notice”); Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1) (“in computing any 

period of time under these rules involving the date of entry of an order by a 

court . . ., the day of entry shall be the day the clerk of the court . . . mails or 

delivers copies of the order to the parties.”); see also Commonwealth v. 

Carter, 122 A.3d 388, 390-92 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appeal period does not run 

until clerk of courts mails or delivers copies of order to parties shown on 

docket); Commonwealth v. Jerman, 762 A.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Super. 2000) 

(where trial court docket did not indicate clerk of courts furnished copy of final 

order to appellant, this Court “assume[d] the period for taking an appeal was 

never triggered,” and considered appeal timely filed). Thus, even if Bowers 

had not benefited from the prisoner mailbox rule, we would construe this 

failing to be a breakdown in court processes that excused Bowers’ otherwise 

untimely filing.
J-S17003-23

- 5 -

2010). Additionally, any PCRA petition “shall be filed within one year of the 

date the judgment 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 

review.” Id. at § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are 

jurisdictional in nature, and a court may not address the merits of the issues 

raised if the PCRA petition was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 

994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).

Instantly, Bowers’ judgment of sentence became final, for the purposes 

of the PCRA, on June 4, 2018, when the time expired for him to file a direct 

appeal to this Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)

(providing 30 days to file notice of appeal). Thus, Bowers had until June 4, 

2019, to file a timely petition under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), 

(3). Bowers’ instant petition was filed on September 22, 2022, over three 

years later. Thus, it is patently untimely.

However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition if the 

petitioner can explicitly plead and prove one of the three exceptions set forth 

at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). These three exceptions are as follows:

(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;
J-S17003-23

- 6 -

(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.

Id. Any petition invoking one of these exceptions “shall be filed within one 

year of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at § 9545(b)(2). 

“The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of proving the applicability of one of 

the exceptions.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa. 2017).

Bowers does not plead, let alone prove, any exception to the PCRA’s 

timeliness requirements. Accordingly, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to 

review Bowers’ untimely PCRA petition, and, thus, we affirm the PCRA court’s 

order dismissing his petition. See Albrecht, supra.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2023