J-S61024-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

JOHN DANTZLER 

 Appellant No. 1961 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 30, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0006538-1990 CP-02-CR-0006540-

1990 CP-02-CR-0014485-1990 CP-02-CR-0016210-1990 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 10, 2016 

 John Dantzler appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing his third petition filed pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.1 After careful 

review, we affirm. 

 On December 20, 1990, Dantzler entered a guilty plea to various drug 

offenses. On May 15, 1991, the court sentenced Dantzler to an aggregate 

term of 16 to 32 years’ incarceration. A mandatory 3-year minimum 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The standard of review of an order denying a PCRA petition is whether that 

determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal 

error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no 

support for the findings in the certified record. Commonwealth v. 

Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2012). 
J-S61024-16 

- 2 - 

sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 (drug trafficking 

sentencing/penalties) was applied to his sentence. Dantzler filed a motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea averring that the plea was not knowing, voluntary or 

intelligent. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied his motion. 

 Dantzler filed a timely direct appeal; our Court affirmed his judgment 

of sentence on March 6, 1992. Dantzler filed a petition for allowance of 

appeal to our Supreme Court that was denied on December 8, 1992. 

Dantzler filed his first PCRA petition on May 25, 1994. On March 2, 1995, 

the court dismissed Dantzler’s petition. On January 16, 1997, Dantzler filed 

his second PCRA petition which the court dismissed on April 9, 1997, for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dantzler filed his 

third PCRA petition on April 16, 2015, alleging that he is eligible for relief 

due to a constitutional violation “that so undermined the truth-determining 

process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken 

place.” PCRA Petition, 4/16/15, at ¶ 4(I). Specifically, Dantzler alleged that 

his sentence is illegal as a result of the court’s application of an 

unconstitutional mandatory minimum statute. On October 30, 2015, the 

court dismissed Dantzler’s petition. This timely appeal followed. 

 On appeal, Dantzler presents the following issue for our review: As 

the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts have found section 97122 to 

____________________________________________ 

2

 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (sentences for offenses committed with firearms). 

Although Dantzler cites section 9712 in his appellate brief, he was actually 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S61024-16 

- 3 - 

be facially unconstitutional in its entirety, is the Appellant entitled to relief 

from his illegal sentence as the statute has been unconstitutional from the 

date of its passage and ineffective for any purpose? Appellant’s Brief, at 7. 

 Generally, a petition for PCRA relief, including a second or subsequent 

petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes 

final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); see also Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 

703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997). Instantly, Dantzler’s judgment of 

sentence became final, for purposes of the PCRA, on March 8, 1993, when 

the time expired for him to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United 

States Supreme Court. See Sup. Ct. R. 13. Thus, in order for Dantzler’s 

petition to be considered timely filed, it must have been filed by March 8, 

2004. Dantzler, however, did not file his third petition until April 16, 2015 – 

more than eleven years late under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 

(b)(3). Therefore, Dantzler’s petition is facially untimely. 

 However, when a petition alleges, and a petitioner proves that an 

exception to the time for filing the petition is met, the petition will be 

considered timely. These exceptions include interference by government 

officials in the presentation of the claim, after-discovered facts or evidence, 

and an after-recognized constitutional right. See Commonwealth v. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

sentenced under section 7508’s mandatory minimum statute, which is cited 

in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of error complained of on appeal as well 

as argued throughout his brief and amended petition. 
J-S61024-16 

- 4 - 

Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000). A PCRA petition invoking 

one of these exceptions must “be filed within 60 days of the date the claims 

could have been presented.” Id; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). The 

timeliness requirements of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and, 

accordingly, a PCRA court cannot hear untimely petitions. Commonwealth 

v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003). 

 Dantzler does not allege or prove any section 9545(b)(1) exception to 

the PCRA time bar. Rather he alleges his sentence is illegal based on the 

holding of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013),3 and the 

application of an unconstitutional mandatory minimum statute, section 

7508(a)(3)(ii). Dantzler is correct that the mandatory minimum statute 

under which he was sentenced has been held unconstitutional. See 

Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014). However, in 

order for this Court to review a legality of sentence claim, there must be a 

basis for our jurisdiction to engage in such review. See Commonwealth v. 

Borovichka, 2011 PA Super 88, 18 A.3d 1242, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2011) 

(stating, “[a] challenge to the legality of a sentence . . . may be entertained 

as long as the reviewing court has jurisdiction[.]”) (citation omitted)). As 

this Court recently noted, “[t]hough not technically waivable, a legality [of 

____________________________________________ 

3

 In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that “facts that increase mandatory 

minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury” and must be found 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 133 S. Ct. at 2163. 
J-S61024-16 

- 5 - 

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 over the claim.” Commonwealth v. 

Seskey, 86 A.3d 237, 242 (Pa. Super. 2014).4

 Thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing Dantzler’s untimely PCRA 

petition. Johnston, supra. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/10/2016 

____________________________________________ 

4

 We also note that Alleyne does not invalidate an unconstitutional 

mandatory minimum sentence when presented in an untimely PCRA petition. 

See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014).