J-S62033-15

_____________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Cour t. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. WILLIAM DAVID PRICE Appellant No. 613 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order April 2, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000761-2002
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 02, 2015 Appellant, William David Price, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, that d ismissed his serial petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On August 8, 2003, a jury convicted Appellant of indecent assault, aggravated indecent assault, incest, rape (victim less than thirteen years old), and corruption of minors, in connection with Appellant’s sexual abuse of his daughter for many years. Victim becam e pregnant numerous times as a result of the abuse and underwent severa l abortions. DNA testing from tissues of the fetus preserved from Victim’s f irst abortion confirmed Appellant was the biological father of the fetus. On November 10, 2003, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 1 11⁄2-30 years’J-S62033-15

- 2 -

imprisonment. On May 9, 2005, this Court affirmed the judgment of
sentence. See Commonwealth v. Price , 880 A.2d 11 (Pa.Super. 2005). Appellant did not pursue further direct review. On February 21, 2006, Appellant timely filed his first PCRA petition. Th e court held a PCRA hearing on January 4, 2007, and subsequently denied relief. On March 11, 2015, Appellant filed pro se the current serial PCRA petition. The court issue d appropriate notice per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on March 19 , 2015; Appellant responded on April 1, 2015. On April 2, 2015, the court denied relief. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 15, 2015. No Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was ordered or filed. The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdiction al requisite. Commonwealth v. Turner , 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied , 625 Pa. 649, 91 A.3d 162 (2014). A PCRA petition m ust be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment becomes fi nal. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at the conc lusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 P a.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness p rovisions allow for very limited circumstances under which the late filing o f 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 presente d. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (b)(2). Instantly, Appellant’s judgmen t of sentence became final on June 8, 2005, upon expiration of the time to file a petition forJ-S62033-15

- 3 -

allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113. Appellant filed the current petition on March 11, 2 015, which is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). The majority of Appell ant’s claims allege ineffective assistance of counsel, wh ich does not satisfy any exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. See Commonwealth v. GamboaTaylor , 562 Pa. 70, 735 A.2d 780 (2000) (explaining gener ic claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not save other wise untimely PCRA petition). Appellant also contends the laboratorie s which performed DNA testing in this case were not approved or certified to perform DNA analysis. To the extent this claim purports to raise the “new facts” timeliness exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), Appellant fail ed to comply with the 60- day rule. 1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). Moreover, Appellant alr eady litigated this claim in a previous PCRA petition he filed on August 14, 2013. 2
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). Thus, the PCRA court p roperly dismissed the current petition as untimely. Accordingly, we affirm. Order affirmed.

____________________________________________ 1 Appellant stated in his response to Rule 907 notic e that he discovered problems regarding certification/approval of the la boratories in 2011.

2 Appellant also mentions Martinez v. Ryan , ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), filed on March 20, 2012. A ppellant did not file his current petition within 60 days of this decision. Further, Martinez affords Appellant no relief. See Commonwealth v. Saunders , 60 A.3d 162 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied , ___ Pa. ___, 72 A.3d 603 (2013) (explaining Martinez applies in context of federal habeas corpus law and is of no moment to timeliness analysis under PCRA).J-S62033-15

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/2/2015