J-S02040-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

E. G.

Appellant No. 335 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order dated January 14, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Criminal Division at No: CP-39-CR-0004517-2008

BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS, and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016

Appellant E. G.1 pro se appeals from the January 14, 2015 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (“PCRA court”), which denied 

Appellant’s request for collateral relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm. 

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. Briefly, 

on January 13, 2009, Appellant entered into a negotiated guilty plea to rape 

of a child under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c) for sexual abuse committed against 

his then 10-year-old biological daughter. The trial court sentenced Appellant 

to 10 to 40 years’ imprisonment on July 16, 2009. This Court affirmed 

____________________________________________

1 We have abbreviated Appellant’s name to protect the identity and privacy 

of the victim, who was a minor when she was sexually abused. 
J-S02040-16

- 2 -

Appellant’s judgment of sentence on June 18, 2010. See Commonwealth 

v. E.G., 4 A.3d 692 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum). 

Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme 

Court. Consequently, his judgment became final on July 18, 2010. 

On September 7, 2010, Appellant pro se filed his first PCRA petition 

titled “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which his appointed counsel 

amended on October 29, 2010. Appellant withdrew his PCRA petition on 

November 22, 2010. Thereafter, on February 4, 2011, Appellant pro se filed 

a second PCRA petition, which the PCRA court denied on April 6, 2011. 

Appellant filed his third pro se PCRA petition on June 9, 2011, which he 

supplemented on June 15, 2011. The PCRA court denied Appellant’s third 

PCRA petition on July 26, 2011. Appellant subsequently filed his fourth pro 

se PCRA petition on July 12, 2012, which the PCRA court denied on August 

20, 2012. On December 10, 2014, Appellant filed the instant, his fifth, pro 

se PCRA petition. The PCRA court denied Appellant relief on January 13, 

2015. Representing himself, Appellant timely appealed to this Court.

On appeal,2 Appellant appears to raise two issues for our review. 

First, he argues that the Commonwealth withheld a May 24, 2008 Lehigh 

____________________________________________

2

“In PCRA proceedings, an appellate court’s scope of review is limited by the 

PCRA’s parameters; since most PCRA appeals involve mixed questions of 

fact and law, the standard of review is whether the PCRA court’s findings are 

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Pitts, 

981 A.2d 875, 878 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted).
J-S02040-16

- 3 -

Valley Hospital report, which the Commonwealth had received prior to his 

guilty plea. Second, Appellant argues that his PCRA counsel was ineffective 

for ignoring threats the Commonwealth made to Appellant in the PCRA 

counsel’s presence on November 22, 2010 and which caused Appellant to 

withdraw his first PCRA petition.

As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the court erred in 

dismissing as untimely Appellant’s PCRA petition. The PCRA contains the 

following restrictions governing the timeliness of any PCRA petition. 

(b) Time for filing petition.--

(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or 

subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the 

judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the 

petitioner proves that: 

(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; 

(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. 

(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) 

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

been presented. 

(3) For purposes of this subchapter, a judgment 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. 
J-S02040-16

- 4 -

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). Section 9545’s timeliness provisions are 

jurisdictional. Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173, 177 (Pa. 2014). 

Here, as stated earlier, the record reflects Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence became final on July 18, 2010. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); 

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Because Appellant had one year from July 18, 2010 to file 

his PCRA petition, the current filing is untimely on its face given it was filed 

on December 10, 2014.

The one-year time limitation, however, can be overcome if a petitioner 

alleges and proves one of the three exceptions set forth in Section 

9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) of the PCRA. Here, Appellant argues for relief based on 

only governmental interference under Section 9545(b)(1)(i). Our review of 

the record indicates that Appellant failed to plead any facts to show that he 

raised the governmental interference exception within 60 days, as required 

by Section 9545(b)(2). Indeed, as the Commonwealth points out, Appellant 

does not allege when he received the hospital report to establish whether he 

filed his fifth (instant) PCRA petition within 60 days of receiving the report. 

With respect to the alleged threats made by the Commonwealth, Appellant 

fails to show why he did not raise this issue within 60 days of November 22, 

2010, i.e., by January 21, 2011, considering Appellant allegedly was 

threatened. We note Appellant had until July 18, 2011 to file a timely PCRA 

petition. 

In sum, given the fact that Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition 

approximately three and one-half years after the deadline to file the petition 
J-S02040-16

- 5 -

had expired and he does not satisfy any of the timeliness exceptions under 

Section 9545(b), the PCRA court did not err in dismissing his petition as 

untimely.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/11/2016