J

### -S23037-17 NON-PRECEDENTIALDECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. ROBERT HRUSOVSKY, 

### Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURTOF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3299 EDA 2016 Appeal

### fromthe PCRAOrderSeptember 12, 2016 in the CourtofCommon Pleas 

### ofNorthampton County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-48-CR-0000684-1995 BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO,J.: 

### FILED MAY

### 05, 2017 Robert Hrusovsky 

### ("Hrusovsky"), prose, appeals

### from the dismissal of his second Petition 

### for relieffiled 

### pursuant to 

### the Post Conviction ReliefAct ("PCRA"). 

### See42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 9541-9546. We 

### affirm. In 1996, Hrusovsky pled 

### guilty to 

### five counts of 

### involuntary deviate sexual 

### intercourse arising 

### out of his sexual abuse 

### of his niece. During 

### sentencing, the 

### trial court indicated 

### that the 

### mandatory minimum sentence
on each count was five years in prison. The 

### trial court subsequently imposed a sentence of five to ten years in prison on each 

### conviction, to run 

### consecutively. This 

### Court affirmed the 

### judgment of sentence. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Hrusovsky, 698 A.2d 665 (Pa. Super. 1997) (unpublished 

### memorandum).1

1 Hrusovsky also entered a 

### guilty plea to related charges in Lehigh County, and wassentenced to a 

### concurrentaggregate prison 

### term of 16 to 48years.J

### -S23037-17 In 

### August 2004, Hrusovsky filed his 

### first PCRA Petition, which was denied. This 

### Court affirmed the denial. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Hrusovsky, 911 A.2d 181 (Pa. Super. 

### 2006),

### appealdenied, 931 A.2d 656 (Pa. Super. 

### 2007). On June 16, 2016, Hrusovsky filed 

### the instant PCRA Petition. The PCRA 

### court appointed Hrusovsky counsel, who 

### subsequently filed a Petition to 

### Withdraw and a no

### -merit letter pursuant to 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 

### 1988), and 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). The PCRA 

### court granted counsel's Petition to 

### Withdraw and issued a Pennsylvania Rule 

### of Criminal Procedure 907 Notice. On 

### September 12, 2016, 

### the PCRA 

### court dismissed the Petition. Hrusovsky filed a Notice 

### ofAppeal, dated October 6, 2016, but docketed on October 13, 2016.

### Initially, we 

### mustdetermine

### whether Hrusovsky filed a

### timely Notice of Appeal. 

### It is well

### -settled 

### that "the date the appeal period begins to run, 'shall be the day the clerk of the 

### court

... mails or 

### delivers copies 

### of the order to the 

### parties.' Commonwealth v. 

### Carter, 122 A.3d 388, 391 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Pa.R.A.P. 

### 108(a)(1)); see 

### also Pa.R.Crim.P. 

### 114(C)(2)(c). Here,the docket indicates

### thatthe Orderdismissingthe PCRA Petition was served on Hrusovsky on 

### September 14, 2016. Thus,



## -2J

### -S23037-17 Hrusovsky's Notice 

### of Appeal, docketed on October 13, 2016, was 

### timely filed. 

### See Pa.R.A.P. 

### 903(a).2 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). 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 atthe 

### 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 ofthe issues raised if the PCRA 

### petition was not 

### timely filed. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 

### 2010). Here, Hrusovsky's 

### judgment of sentence became final in May 1997, 

### after the 

### time to seek review 

### with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

2 Further, the Commonwealth concedes 

### that Hrusovsky 

### timely filed his Notice ofAppeal on October 6, 2016, under the prisoner 

### mailbox rule. 

### See Brief 

### for the Commonwealth at 3 n.7 

### (citing 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Wilson, 911A.2d 942, 944 n.3 (Pa. Super. 

### 2006)).

- 3 -J

### -S23037-17 expired. 

### See Pa.R.A.P. 1113. Thus, 

### Hrusovsky's 2016 PCRA Petition is 

### facially untimely. However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an 

### untimely petition ifthe 

### appellant can 

### explicitly plead and prove one 

### of three exceptions set 

### forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Any 

### petition invoking one of these exceptions 

### "shall be filed 

### within 60 days 

### of the date the claim could have been 

### presented." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(2); 

### Albrecht, 992A.2d at 1094. Here, Hrusovsky invokes the newly-recognized 

### constitutional right exception based on 

### Alleyne v. 

### UnitedStates, 133 S. Ct. 2151 

### (2013). See Brief

### for Appellant at 

### 7-19. In

### Alleyne, the Supreme Court held 

### that any

### fact

### that increasesthe sentence

### for a given 

### crime must be 

### submitted to the 

### jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. 

### Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2155. The Supreme Court reasoned 

### that a Sixth 

### Amendment violation
occurs where these sentence

### -determinative facts are not 

### submitted to a 

### jury. 

### Id. at 2156. Hrusovsky argues

### that

### Alleyneapplies 

### retroactivelyand renders his sentence illegal. 

### See Brief

### forAppellantat

### 7-8, 9-12, 14, 16-19. Here, Hrusovskyfiled the 

### instant PCRA Petition on June 16, 2016, well over 60 days 

### after June 17, 2013, the date

### that

### Alleynewas decided. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 517 (Pa. Super. 

### 2007) (stating 

### that 

### "[w]ith regard to [a 

### newly]-recognized 

### constitutional right, this Court has held 

### that the 

### sixty-day period begins to run upon the date of the underlying

### judicial decision.");

### see

### also42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(2). 

## -4J

### -S23037-17 Further, the rule established in 

### Alleyne does not 

### apply 

### retroactively where, as here, the

### judgment of sentence is

### final. See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Washington, 142A.3d 810, 820 (Pa. 2016) 

### (stating 

### that

### "Alleynedoes not apply 

### retroactively to cases pending on 

### collateral 

### review[.]"); see 

### also 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 

### 2014) (noting 

### that 

### "[t]hough not 

### technically waivable, a 

### legality 

### [of sentence] claim may nevertheless be lost should it be raised

... in an 

### untimely PCRA 

### petition 

### for which no 

### time-bar exception applies,thus depriving the 

### court of

### jurisdiction overthe

### claim.") (citationomitted).3 As Hrusovskyfailed to 

### meetthe requirements ofthe newly-recognized 

### constitutional right exception, the PCRA 

### court properly dismissed his second PCRA Petition. Order

### affirmed.

3 Hrusovsky cites to numerous cases relying upon 

### Alleyne to 

### support his 

### argument

### that

### Alleyneapplies 

### retroactivelyand renders his sentence illegal. However, those cases, as well as the timeliness exception invoked by Hrusovsky, are based upon the new rule of law established in 

### Alleyne, which is inapplicableto 

### this case. 

### See 

### Washington,supra. Further, to the 

### extent Hrusovsky cites to cases 

### from this Court to avoid the 60

### -day requirement, we note 

### that to 

### properly invoke the newly-recognized 

### constitutional right exception, the new 

### right must be established in a decision bythe Supreme Courtofthe United Statesorthe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

### See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

### 9545(b)(1)(iii).

- 5 -J

### -S23037-17

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. 

### Seletyn, Es

. 

### Prothonotary Date: 

### 5/5/2017



## -6