J-S01037-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEVEN D. GEBHART 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1099 MDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 30, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0005854-2008, 

CP-67-CR-0007763-2009

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 06, 2018

Appellant, Steven D. Gebhart, appeals pro se from the order entered 

in the York County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his serial petition

for collateral relief (labeled as motions for various relief) per the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. At Docket 

No. 5854-2008, a jury convicted Appellant on November 17, 2010, of theft 

by deception, corrupt organizations, and deceptive business practices. On 

February 4, 2011, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 4.3 

to 8.6 years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on 

September 22, 2014, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on 

April 1, 2015. See Commonwealth v. Gebhart, 107 A.3d 232 (Pa.Super. 

2014) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 631 Pa. 735, 113 A.3d 

278 (2015). Appellant sought no further direct review. So, the judgment of 
J-S01037-18

- 2 -

sentence at Docket No. 5854-2008 became final on June 30, 2015. 

At Docket No. 7763-2009, a jury convicted Appellant on November 3, 

2011, of insurance fraud. On December 21, 2011, the court sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate term of 9 months to 5 years’ incarceration, plus 

restitution, consecutive to the sentence at Docket No. 5854-2008. This 

Court affirmed on February 15, 2013. See Commonwealth v. Gebhart, 68 

A.3d 364 (Pa.Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant sought 

no further direct review. So, the judgment of sentence at Docket No. 7763-

2009 became final on March 17, 2013. In 2014, Appellant filed his first 

PCRA petition at Docket No. 7763-2009, which was ultimately unsuccessful. 

In 2016, Appellant filed at both docket numbers a PCRA petition—his first at 

Docket No. 5854-2008 and his second at Docket No. 7763-2009—which was 

also ultimately unsuccessful. 

On May 10, 2017, Appellant filed at both docket numbers several pro 

se motions, including: “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

Newly Discovered Evidence;” “Motion for Original Jurisdiction;” and “Motion 

for Quash.” The PCRA court deemed the motions collectively as his second

PCRA petition at Docket No. 5854-2008 and his third PCRA petition at 

Docket No. 7763-2009. The PCRA court denied Appellant relief in an order 

dated May 30, 2017, and mailed to Appellant on May 31, 2017. On June 30, 

2017, Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, per the prisoner 

mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa.Super. 
J-S01037-18

- 3 -

2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012) (explaining prisoner 

mailbox rule provides that document is considered filed on date pro se

prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing). The PCRA court 

ordered Appellant, on July 7, 2017, to file a Rule 1925(b) statement; 

Appellant timely complied on August 1, 2017, and filed an amended 

statement on August 3, 2017. 

Preliminarily, a petition for post-conviction collateral relief will 

generally be considered a PCRA petition, even if captioned as a request for 

habeas corpus relief, if the petition raises issues cognizable under the PCRA. 

See Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638 (1998); 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (stating PCRA shall be sole means of obtaining collateral 

relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for 

same purpose). 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). The exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow for very limited 

circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be excused; a 

petitioner asserting an exception must file a petition within 60 days of the 

date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2). 
J-S01037-18

- 4 -

Instantly, Appellant appears to assert, inter alia, the trial courts lacked

jurisdiction and he recently discovered new evidence related to his 

convictions. Appellant’s claims are cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi), (viii). So, the court properly treated Appellant’s 

pro se motions collectively as a PCRA petition. See Peterkin, supra. 

Nevertheless, at Docket No. 7763-2009, Appellant’s judgment of sentence 

became final on March 17, 2013, upon expiration of the time to file a petition 

for allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a). At 

Docket No. 5854-2008, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on 

June 30, 2015, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for a writ of 

certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. Appellant filed 

the current, pro se serial petition for collateral relief on May 10, 2017, which 

is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Though Appellant 

appears to claim he has newly-discovered evidence, he failed to plead and 

prove any of the exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. See id. Therefore, 

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

jurisdiction to review it. See Turner, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.1 

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________

1 Due to our disposition, we deny as moot Appellant’s open “Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order,” “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” and 

“Motion for Expedition.” 
J-S01037-18

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/06/2018