J

### -S62025-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. GRANT PAIGE 

### Appellant : No. 526 EDA 2017 Appeal

### from the PCRA 

### Order Entered 

### January 3, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas

### of Philadelphia 

### CountyCriminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0530351-1994
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN,J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: 

### FILEDJANUARY

### 07, 

### 2019 Grant Paige appeals 

### from the dismissal as 

### untimely of his 

### petition for relief under the Post 

### Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 9541- 9546. He 

### maintains

### that"the PCRA 

### [c]ourt should 

### ha[ve] given 

### [him] relief on his PCRA 

### petition in 

### light of

### Alleyne [] being a 

### substantive ruling."1 Paige's Br. at 16. We 

### affirm. A 

### jury convicted Paige of 

### third-degree murder; possessing an 

### instrument of crime; two counts of 

### robbery; and conspiracy.2The 

### trial court sentenced him to 35 to 70 

### years' incarceration. Paige filed a post

### -sentence motion which the 

### trial court denied. He 

### then filed a 

### timely appeal and 

### this

1 

### See

### Alleyne v. 

### UnitedStates, 570 U.S. 99, 103 

### (2013) (holding 

### "[a]ny fact 

### that, by law, increases 

### the penalty 

### for a 

### crime is an

### 'element' that must be 

### submitted to 

### the

### jury and found beyond a reasonable 

### doubt").

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 2502(c); 907; 

### 3701(a)(1); and 

### 903(a), respectively.J

### -S62025-18
Court affirmed the

### judgment of sentence. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Paige, 695 A.2d 439 (Pa.Super. 1997) (unpublished 

### memorandum). Our 

### Supreme Courtdenied his 

### petition for allowanceof appeal on 

### September 26, 1997. 

### See 

### Commonwealthv. 

### Paige, 701 A.2d 576 (Pa. 

### 1997). "On December 1, 1998, [Paige] filed his

### first pro se PCRA 

### petition,"which the PCRA 

### court denied and 

### this Court 

### affirmed. PCRA 

### Court Opinion ("PCO"), filed 

### January 3, 

### 2017, at 1 

### (unpaginated). On October 17, 2014, Paige filed 

### the 

### instant petition giving rise to 

### this appeal. The PCRA 

### court issued its notice of 

### intent to dismiss 

### the petition 

### without a hearing and Paige responded to 

### the notice. 

### See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Paige 

### then filed a 

### motion to amend his 

### petition citing 

### Montgomery v. 

### Louisiana, which had been 

### recently decided at 

### that time.3 

### See Mot. to Amend, filed 

### 3/25/16. The PCRA 

### court issued a second Rule 907 notice and 

### ultimately dismissed 

### the 

### petition on 

### January 3, 2017. This 

### timely appeal 

### followed. On appeal, Paige asks us to 

### review thefollowing issues: I. Does

### the ruling

### within

### Alleyene[sic] v. 

### UnitedStates, 133 S.Ct. 

### 2151, 186 L.Ed. 314 

### (2013), appliesto [Paige's] case and is a 

### substantive issue? I. Does 

### the ruling 

### within 

### Montgomeryv. 

### Louisiana, 577 US

, 136S.Ct. , 193 L.Ed.2D 599, 2016 US LEXIS 862

3

### See

### Montgomeryv. 

### Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 

### (2016) (holding 

### Miller v.

### Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 

### (2012), announced a 

### substantive ruleto beapplied 

### retroactively on

### collateral review regarding sentencesof life

### without parole

### for juveniles being 

### unconstitutional). 

## -2J

### -S62025-18 (2016), United States Supreme Court ruling falls under 42 Pa.C.S. § 

### 9545(b)(iii)? Paige's Br. at4 

### (answers of PCRA 

### court

### omitted). Our standard of review 

### for the denial of a PCRA 

### petition "is limited to 

### examining 

### whether the PCRA 

### court's determination is 

### supported by evidence of record and 

### whether it is 

### free of legal 

### error." 

### Commonwealth v.

### Jordan, 182 A.3d 1046, 1049 (Pa.Super. 

### 2018). We do not address the 

### merits of Paige's issues because his 

### petition is 

### untimely. See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Smith, 194 A.3d 126, 132 (Pa.Super. 

### 2018) ("PCRA's 

### time limitations implicate our 

### jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in 

### order to address 

### the 

### merits of a 

### petition"). A 

### petitioner has one

### yearfromthe date hisor her

### judgment ofsentence is

### final, to 

### file a 

### first or subsequent PCRA 

### petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1). 

### "[A] judgment 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."

### Commonwealth v.

### Staton, 184 A.3d 

### 949, 954 (Pa. 

### 2018) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(3)). After the 

### one-year deadline, the 

### petitioner must plead and prove one of the 

### time-bar exceptions. These 

### exceptions include: (1) the 

### failure to raise 

### the claim 

### previously was due to 

### governmental interference; (2) the facts of the claimwere unknownto 

### the

### petitioner and could not have beenascertained by due

### diligence; or (3) a 

### newly recognized 

### constitutional right

### thatthe United States Supreme Court or Pennsylvania 

### Supreme Court has held to 

### apply

- 3 -J

### -S62025-18 retroactively. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

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

### time-bar exception must be raised 

### within 60 days 

### from the time the claim could 

### first have been raised. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Kretchmar, 189 A.3d 

### 459, 462 (Pa.Super. 2018) 

### (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(2)). Here, Paige's 

### judgment of sentence became final on December 25, 1997, when his

### time to file a 

### petition 

### for

### writ of

### certiorarito 

### the United States SupremeCourt expired. 

### See42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(3);see

### also U.S.Sup.Ct. R. 13. Thus, he had one 

### year from 

### that date to 

### file a 

### timely petition. The 

### instant petition filed over a decade 

### after the deadline is 

### patently untimely. Therefore the PCRA 

### court was

### withoutjurisdiction to address

### the 

### petition and it was Paige's burden to plead and prove 

### that at least one 

### of 

### the time-bar exceptionsapplied. 

### See

### Commonwealthv.

### Albrecht, 994A.2d 1091, 

### 1093- 94 (Pa. 

### 2010) (stating PCRA 

### court has no 

### jurisdiction over 

### untimely PCRA 

### petition); see

### also Commonwealth v. 

### Woods, 179 A.3d 37, 42 (Pa.Super. 

### 2017) (holding 

### petitioner bears burdento plead and prove

### time-bar exception 

### for untimely PCRA 

### petition). As 

### the PCRA 

### court concluded, Paige fails to 

### meet his burden to plead and prove 

### at least one 

### ofthe 

### time-bar exceptions. In his PCRA 

### petition Paige claimed the 

### exceptions of governmental interference and a newly recognized 

### constitutional right held to 

### apply 

### retroactively and argued 

### that his sentence was illegal. 

### See PCRA Pet., filed 

### 10/17/14, at 1 

### (unpaginated) (citing 

### Alleyne); see

### also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9545(b)(1)(i), (iii). However, he 

### went no 

### further than citing the exceptions. His 

### petition below and his 

### appellate brief

- 4 -J

### -S62025-18

fail to prove 

### why the above referenced 

### exceptions apply. The PCRA 

### court concluded 

### that no 

### reliefwas dueto 

### the 

### untimely nature ofthe petition and his 

### failure to plead and prove at least one 

### of the 

### time-bar exceptions. This conclusion is 

### supported by 

### the certified record before us. First, 

### the PCRA 

### court stated 

### that 

### "Alleyne was decided on June 17, 

### 2013;

. . . [Paige] 

### submitted his claim on

### October 17, 2014

## - well beyond

### the 

### sixty-day limit, thereby rendering his claim 

### untimely." PCO at 7. Second, it acknowledged 

### that

### Alleyne does not 

### apply 

### retroactively to cases 

### under PCRA 

### review, 

### thereby warranting no 

### relieffor Paige. 

### Id. (citing 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058, 1067 (Pa.Super. 

### 2015)). Third, the PCRA 

### court concluded

### that Paige's reliance on

### Montgomerywasmisguided because Paige was not a 

### juvenile at the 

### time he 

### committed his offenses. 

### Id. at 6 n.2 

### ("[Paige's] date 

### of birth is 

### November 2, 1973. The 

### underlying offense was 

### committed on 

### April 11, 1993, making his age nineteen (19) when he 

### committed his

### crimes"). The PCRA

### court's decision to dismiss Paige's PCRA 

### petition is 

### supported by

### the record and 

### free of any legal 

### error. We

### therefore affirm the

### order ofthe PCRA 

### court. Order

### affirmed.



## -5J

### -S62025-18
Judgment Entered.


### Jseph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary
Date: 

### 1/7/19



## -6