J-A13043-19

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

HAROLD FRANKLIN FORD,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 110 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 5, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0003457-2002

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 1, 2019

Harold Franklin Ford (Appellant) appeals pro se from the December 5, 

2018 order dismissing his petition to strike judgment as an untimely-filed 

petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-

9546. We affirm.

On December 18, 2002, a jury convicted [Appellant] of 

robbery and conspiracy based upon his participation in a June 

2002 robbery at a hotel in Chester County. On June 30, 2003, 

the trial court sentenced [Appellant] to a mandatory minimum 

term of 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment, pursuant to 

[subsection] 9714(a)(2), for his robbery conviction, concluding 

the conviction was [Appellant’s] “third strike” under the law.

[Appellant’s] judgment of sentence was affirmed by this Court 

on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court subsequently denied 

his petition for review on April 19, 2005. See Commonwealth 

v. Ford, 859 A.2d 829 [] (Pa. Super. 2004) (unpublished 

memorandum), appeal denied, 872 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005). On 

May 2, 2005, Ford filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition. Counsel 

was appointed and filed an amended petition, which the PCRA 

court ultimately dismissed on May 29, 2007. This Court affirmed 

the PCRA court’s order on appeal, and, once again, the Supreme 

Court denied [Appellant’s] petition for review. See 
J-A13043-19

- 2 -

Commonwealth v. Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa. Super. 2008), 

appeal denied, 959 A.2d 319 (Pa. 2008).

Thereafter, [Appellant] filed multiple pro se petitions 

seeking PCRA relief, none of which [was] successful.

Commonwealth v. Ford, 192 A.3d 248 (Pa. Super. 2018) (unpublished 

memorandum at *1).

Most recently, Appellant filed the petition at issue herein on October 

25, 2018. Although styled as a petition to strike judgment, the PCRA court 

treated the October 25, 2018 filing as Appellant’s sixth PCRA petition.

1

 On 

November 7, 2018, the PCRA court filed a notice of intent to dismiss the 

petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant did not 

respond, and the petition was dismissed on December 5, 2018. 

On December 17, 2018, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.2,3 On 

appeal, Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 

 

1 Because Appellant’s claims implicate the legality of his sentence, his issues

were cognizable under the PCRA and therefore, the PCRA court properly 

considered Appellant’s filing as a PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. 

Beck, 848 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“Issues concerning the legality

of sentence are cognizable under the PCRA.”).

2 Appellant’s notice of appeal lists the “November 7, 2018 order of 

dismissal[,]” as the order from which he appeals. See Pro Se Notice of 

Appeal, 12/17/2018 (emphasis and unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

However, as noted supra, the November order was merely a notice of the 

PCRA court’s intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition, and thus was a nonfinal, non-appealable order. On this basis, the PCRA court urges this Court 

to quash Appellant’s appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/10/2019, at 1 n.1 

(“I respectfully suggest that this appeal is taken from a non-final, non-

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A13043-19

- 3 -

5 (unnumbered). Specifically, Appellant avers he is entitled to relief because

the trial court improperly sentenced Appellant as a “third-strike” offender 

when (1) he was never sentenced as a second-strike offender, and (2) his 

prior convictions did not meet the statutory requirements to qualify as first 

or second strikes. Id. We begin our review mindful of the following.

Under the PCRA, all petitions must be filed within one year of the date 

that the petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final, unless one of three 

statutory exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) applies. 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9545(b)4; Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. 2006). 

“The PCRA’s time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature.” Chester, 895 

A.2d at 522. “Thus, ‘[i]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

appealable order.”). Notably, Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed after the 

actual order of dismissal was filed. 

Considering Appellant’s reference to the November 7th order as the 

“order of dismissal,” it appears Appellant mistakenly listed the November 

order instead of the PCRA court’s December 5, 2018 order which did dismiss 

Appellant’s petition. Regardless, this apparent error is of no consequence, 

as Appellant’s timely-filed notice of appeal invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. 

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (holding that a 

timely notice of appeal, irrespective if it is otherwise defective, triggers the 

jurisdiction of the appellate court). 

3 Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

4 There are also time restrictions on when a petitioner must file a petition 

after a time-bar-exception claim has arisen. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).

On October 24, 2018, the General Assembly amended subsection 9545(b)(2) 

in order to extend the time for filing a petition from 60 days to one year 

from the date the claim could have been presented. See 2018 

Pa.Legis.Serv.Act 2018-146 (S.B. 915), effective December 24, 2018.
J-A13043-19

- 4 -

the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we 

simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.’” 

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. 2005)). 

Moreover, “[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 over the claim.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995-

96 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

“For purposes of [the PCRA], 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 at the expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9545(b)(3). In this case, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition 

for allowance of appeal on April 19, 2005. Thus, Appellant’s October 25, 

2018 petition is facially untimely.

Nevertheless, we may consider an untimely-filed PCRA petition if 

Appellant pleaded and proved one of the three exceptions set forth in 42

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). In his brief on appeal, Appellant asserts the 

governmental-interference and newly-discovered evidence exceptions found 

at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i) (providing an exception where “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 
J-A13043-19

- 5 -

laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States” 

and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (providing an exception where “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”). Appellant’s 

Brief at 8. In support of the latter exception, Appellant cites

Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2014) and 

Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 107 A.3d 735 (Pa. 2014). Appellant’s Brief 

at 8. 

Initially, we note that “although this Court is willing to construe

liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers 

no special benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 

245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003). “This Court will not act as counsel and will 

not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. 

Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). 

“It is Appellant’s obligation to sufficiently develop arguments in 

his brief by applying the relevant law to the facts of the case, 

persuade this Court that there were errors below, and convince 

us relief is due because of those errors. If an appellant does not 

do so, we may find the argument waived.” 

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 284 (Pa. Super. 2009). Here, the 

argument section of Appellant’s brief is underdeveloped and incoherent at 

times. Likewise, this section is difficult to follow due to Appellant’s failure to 

divide his argument section “into as many parts as there are questions to be 
J-A13043-19

- 6 -

argued.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119. In light of the foregoing, we find Appellant’s issues 

waived. 

Regardless, even if Appellant did not waive his issues on appeal, he 

would still not be entitled to relief. Notably, this Court has previously

determined that Appellant’s reliance on Armstrong did not constitute a 

newly discovered fact. Ford, 947 A.2d at 1255. 

Although [Appellant] does not explicitly invoke any of the 

time for filing exceptions, he does imply that he is entitled to 

relief based upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in 

[Armstrong, 107 A.3d at 735]. In that case, the Supreme 

Court affirmed, without further opinion, the decision of this 

Court, which held that a defendant cannot be sentenced under 

the third strike provision of Section 9714, when his second strike 

offense was committed before he was convicted and sentenced 

as a first strike offender, and, therefore, the defendant had no 

opportunity to reform. See [Armstrong, 74 A.3d[ at 241–242]

We conclude the Armstrong decision does not provide 

[Appellant] with relief. First, it is well-settled that judicial 

decisions do not equate to “newly discovered facts” pursuant to 

the exception set forth in [subs]ection 9545(b)(1)(ii). ... [E]ven if 

Armstrong did provide [Appellant] with a basis for relief, his 

present petition was not filed within 60 days of the Supreme 

Court’s decision as required by [subs]ection 9545(b)(2). See 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(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.”). Therefore, 

[Appellant] has failed to invoke a timing exception based on

Armstrong.

Ford, 192 A.3d 248 (unpublished memorandum at *2).

Additionally, with respect to Appellant’s government interference 

claim, related to his previous counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, it is well 

settled that claims related to defense counsel “do not qualify [as 
J-A13043-19

- 7 -

governmental interference] due to the specific provision in 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9545(b)(4) that the term ‘government officials’ does not include defense 

counsel.” Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911, 916 (Pa. 2000). See 

also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(4) (“For purposes of this subchapter, 

‘government officials’ shall not include defense counsel, whether appointed 

or retained.”). Thus, Appellant has failed to plead and prove that either 

exception applies. 

Moreover, this Court previously concluded that, irrespective of 

Appellant’s failure to meet a timeliness exception, Appellant’s legality claims

are meritless. See Ford, 947 A.2d at 1255; Ford, 192 A.3d at *3.

[Appellant] raised a virtually identical claim in the appeal 

from the denial of his first PCRA petition. Specifically, he argued 

“because he was never sentenced as a second strike offender 

pursuant to section 9714, he cannot be sentenced as a third 

strike offender.” Ford, supra, 947 A.2d at 1254. A panel of this 

Court rejected this claim as follows:

[T]he Commonwealth’s Sentencing Memorandum 

filed on June 17, 2003, in support of its Notice of 

Intent to Invoke Mandatory Minimum Sentencing 

Provisions, provides clear proof that [Appellant’s]

prior convictions satisfy the mandates of both 

[Commonwealth v.] Shiffler[, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 

2005),] and section 9714. Specifically, our review of 

the Commonwealth’s sentencing memorandum 

reveals the following:

1. On September 20, 1974, in case nos. 

148–73 and 186–73, [Appellant] pled 

guilty to, inter alia, the charge of robbery 

while armed and robbery, respectively, 

and was sentenced to two concurrent 

terms of four to eight years 

imprisonment.
J-A13043-19

- 8 -

2. On September 11, 1979, in case no. 

1199–78, [Appellant] was sentenced to 

24 months to 59 months imprisonment 

following his conviction of, inter alia, 

robbery.

3. On December 20, 1991, in case no. 

2883–88, [Appellant] was sentenced to 

four to ten years imprisonment following 

his conviction of robbery.

Commonwealth’s Sentencing Memorandum, 

06/17/03, Exhibits A, B, C, D.

Clearly, the record contradicts [Appellant’s] assertion 

that the requirements for a third strike offender were 

not established. Specifically, the record reflects that 

[Appellant] was sentenced for crimes of violence on 

three occasions prior to the instant offense, and 

given intervening opportunities to reform, of which 

he clearly failed to take advantage. As noted by the 

learned trial judge, [Appellant’s] current robbery 

conviction actually represents his fourth strike. 

Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s 

imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence 

pursuant to [sub]section 9714(a)(2).

Ford, supra, 947 A.2d at 1255. 

Ford, 192 A.3d 248 (unpublished memorandum at *3). (some citations and 

unnecessary capitalization omitted). Thus, this Court has already reviewed 

and addressed Appellant’s issues concerning his status as a third-strike 

offender, as well as Appellant’s prior convictions to support the imposition of 

a mandatory minimum sentence and determined that these claims were 

without merit. It is well-settled that previously litigated claims are not 
J-A13043-19

- 9 -

cognizable under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 

260 (Pa. 2011). 

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude Appellant’s petition was 

untimely filed, he did not satisfy an exception to the timeliness 

requirements, and his legality claims were previously litigated. Thus, the 

PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to review his petition, and he is not entitled to 

relief.5 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/1/19

 

5 Lastly, we note that Appellant attempts to raise ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims for the first time on appeal. Appellant’s Brief at 7-8. Without 

addressing whether these claims meet a timeliness exception, because these 

issues were not raised in Appellant’s pro se petition before the PCRA court, 

they are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower 

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).