J-S08034-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

v. :

:

DONALD RICHARD MESSINA, :

 :

Appellant : No. 1096 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Order June 22, 2015 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County, 

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-16-CR-0000528-2004 

BEFORE: STABILE, DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 29, 2016 

 Donald Richard Messina (“Messina”) appeals, pro se, from the Order 

dismissing his “Petition for County Habeas Corpus.”1 We affirm. 

 In 2004, Messina, age 49, was arrested and charged with having 

sexual intercourse with, and impregnating, a fourteen-year-old girl. In April 

2005, following a jury trial, Messina was convicted of four counts of 

statutory sexual assault and one count of corruption of a minor. On June 

15, 2005, the trial court sentenced Messina to an aggregate prison term of 

 

1 Any petition filed after the judgment of sentence has become final will be 

treated as a petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”), codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. See Commonwealth v. 

Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2010). The PCRA is the sole means 

of obtaining collateral relief, and subsumes all other remedies, including 

habeas corpus. Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 770 (Pa. 2013); 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. Thus, the claims raised in Messina’s “Petition for 

County Habeas Corpus” fall within the scope of the PCRA and, hence, his

Petition is treated as a Petition for relief under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(2). 
J-S08034-16 

- 2 - 

77 months to 144 months, followed by five years of probation.2 Messina’s 

judgment of sentence was affirmed on August 28, 2006. See

Commonwealth v. Messina, 909 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2006) (unpublished 

memorandum). Messina did not seek review by the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court. 

 On June 15, 2015, Messina filed the instant Petition, his fifth Petition 

for relief under the PCRA. The PCRA court dismissed the Petition on June 

22, 2015. Messina filed a timely Notice of Appeal on July 2, 2015. 

 On appeal, Messina raises the following issues for our review: 

1. Was the trial [j]udge bias [sic] all through the trial? 

2. Did the prosecutor commit prosecutorial misconduct in telling 

the jury that [Messina] was guilty? 

Brief for Appellant at 5 (unnumbered).3 

We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA 

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA 

level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court 

and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s 

ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal 

error. 

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations 

omitted). 

 

2 Our review of the docket reveals that, since his trial, Messina has filed pro 

se, inter alia, more than 70 motions and petitions, several complaints, and 

numerous appeals to this Court. Many of Messina’s pro se filings were made 

while he was still represented by counsel. 

3 We note that Messina’s brief does not conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure that govern the form and content of an appellate brief. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2111-2133. 
J-S08034-16 

- 3 - 

Under the PCRA, any PCRA petition “including a second or subsequent 

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 the review.” Id. § 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). 

Here, Messina’s judgment of sentence became final on September 27, 

2006, when the period of time to file an appeal with our Supreme Court 

expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 

A.2d 638, 643 (Pa. Super. 2005). Messina had until September 27, 2007, to 

file the instant PCRA Petition, but did not do so until June 15, 2015. Thus, 

Messina’s instant Petition is facially untimely under the PCRA. 

Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the 

appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth 

under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Any PCRA petition invoking one of these 

exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have 

been presented.” Id. § 9545(b)(2); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. 
J-S08034-16 

- 4 - 

Here, Messina has failed to plead or prove the applicability of any of 

the exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9545(b)(1); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094. Thus, Messina has failed to 

overcome the untimeliness of his Petition. Accordingly, we discern no error 

by the PCRA court in dismissing Messina’s fifth PCRA Petition. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 2/29/2016