J-S62033-15 

_____________________________ 

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 dismissed 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 became pregnant numerous 

times as a result of the abuse and underwent several abortions. DNA testing 

from tissues of the fetus preserved from Victim’s first abortion confirmed 

Appellant was the biological father of the fetus. On November 10, 2003, the 

court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 111⁄2-30 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. The 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 issued 

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 jurisdictional requisite. 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 

625 Pa. 649, 91 A.3d 162 (2014). A PCRA petition must be filed within one 

year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at the conclusion of direct review or 

at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). 

The statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness provisions allow for very 

limited circumstances under which the late filing of 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 presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1), (b)(2). Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became 

final on June 8, 2005, upon expiration of the time to file a petition for 
J-S62033-15 

- 3 - 

allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113. 

Appellant filed the current petition on March 11, 2015, which is patently 

untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). The majority of Appellant’s 

claims allege ineffective assistance of counsel, which does not satisfy any 

exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. See Commonwealth v. GamboaTaylor, 562 Pa. 70, 735 A.2d 780 (2000) (explaining generic claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel do not save otherwise untimely PCRA 

petition). Appellant also contends the laboratories 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 failed to comply with the 60-

day rule.1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). Moreover, Appellant already 

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 properly dismissed 

the current petition as untimely. Accordingly, we affirm. 

 Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Appellant stated in his response to Rule 907 notice that he discovered 

problems regarding certification/approval of the laboratories 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. Appellant 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