J-S37004-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JAMES JOHN INGRAHAM

Appellant No. 1919 MDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered November 3, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County

Criminal Division at Nos: CP-06-CR-0002228-2013, CP-06-CR-0002516-

2009, CP-06-CR-0002226-2013

BEFORE: STABILE, MOULTON, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2017

Appellant, James John Ingraham, appeals from the November 3, 2016 

order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, dismissing his 

petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 

42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Upon review, we affirm.

The underlying factual and procedural background is undisputed. 

Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes, as a result of raping several 

young girls, including his biological daughter. Following the entry of a plea 

agreement, Appellant was sentenced as follows: (1) Docket number 2516-

2009: On October 30, 2009, Appellant was sentenced to 8 to 16 years’ 

imprisonment, followed by 15 years’ probation; (2) Docket number 2226-

2013: On June 10, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to 8 to 16 years’ 

imprisonment, followed by 15 years’ probation, to be served consecutively to 
J-S37004-17

- 2 -

the sentence imposed at docket number 2516-2009; Docket number 2228-

2013: On June 10, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to 8 to 16 years’ 

imprisonment, followed by 15 years’ probation, to be served concurrently 

with the sentence imposed at docket number 2226-2013. Appellant did not 

appeal any of his sentences. 

On June 1, 2015, Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition, his first. 

After appointing counsel, the PCRA court granted counsel’s petition for 

withdrawal, and, on November 3, 2016, dismissed Appellant’s first PCRA 

petition as untimely. This appeal followed.

As discussed below, Appellant does not establish the timeliness of the 

instant petition. Appellant merely argues the merits of his petition. For the 

reasons stated below, we conclude Appellant’s PCRA petition is untimely and 

therefore he is not entitled to a review of the merits of his petition.

“[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of fact to 

determine whether they are supported by the record, and reviews its 

conclusions of law to determine whether they are free from legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014). All PCRA 

petitions, “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within 

one year of the date the judgment becomes final” unless an exception to 

timeliness applies. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “The PCRA’s time 

restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is 

untimely, neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has jurisdiction over the 

petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to 
J-S37004-17

- 3 -

address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 

520, 522 (Pa. 2006) (first alteration in original) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). As timeliness is separate and distinct from the 

merits of Appellant’s underlying claims, we first determine whether this 

PCRA petition is timely filed. See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 

306, 310 (Pa. 2008) (consideration of Brady claim separate from 

consideration of its timeliness). The timeliness requirements of the PCRA 

petition must be met, even if the underlying claim is a challenge to the 

legality of the sentence. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 60 

(Pa. 2007) (“Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within 

the PCRA, claims must still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the 

exceptions thereto”) (citing Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 

(Pa. 1999)). 

As noted, Appellant does not specifically address the timeliness of the 

underlying PCRA petition. He seems to imply that because he is challenging 

the legality of his sentence under Alleyne,

1

the challenge is not subject to 

time restrictions. Alleyne, however, is of no help to Appellant. It is wellestablished that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases, like the 

instant one, pending on collateral review. See Commonwealth v. 

____________________________________________

1 Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding that a jury 

must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact increasing a mandatory 

minimum sentence). 
J-S37004-17

- 4 -

Washington, 142 A.3d 810, 819-20 (Pa. 2016). Additionally, as the PCRA 

court noted, Alleyne is not applicable here because Appellant was not 

sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. Alleyne, supra. Finally, to 

insure that the PCRA timeliness requirements were met, Appellant should 

have filed the instant petition within 60 days of Alleyne. See Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(2). He did not.2 Accordingly, because Alleyne does not provide 

any support for Appellant’s timeliness argument, we must conclude that the 

PCRA court correctly found the instant petition untimely.3 Because the 

instant petition is untimely, we cannot review the merits of Appellant’s 

contentions. See Chester, supra (courts have no jurisdiction to review the 

merits of an untimely PCRA petition); Fahy, 737 A.2d at 224 (same). 

____________________________________________

2 Alleyne was decided on June 17, 2013. Appellant filed the instant PCRA 

petition on June 1, 2015.

3 Appellant’s conviction at Docket number 2516-2009 became final at the 

expiration of the time for filing a direct appeal, i.e., November 30, 2009. 

Accordingly, Appellant had one year from that date to file a timely PCRA 

petition (i.e., November 30, 2010). Appellant’s convictions at Docket 

numbers 2226-2013 and 2228-2013 became final at the expiration of the 

time for filing a direct appeal, i.e., July 10, 2013. Accordingly, Appellant had 

one year from that date to file a timely PCRA petition (i.e., July 10, 2014). 

Appellant filed the underlying PCRA on June 1, 2015. The petition is clearly 

facially untimely. Additionally, as explained, Appellant failed to prove any of 

the exceptions apply. The instant PCRA petition is therefore untimely. 
J-S37004-17

- 5 -

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/21/2017