J

- S57014

- 18

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

v.

RICKADMUS ABROKWA

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 4057 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order November 14, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0007784

- 2012,

CP

- 51

- CR

- 0007785

- 2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., PLATT * , J., and STRASSBURGER * , J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 14, 2018 Rickadmus 1 Abrokwa appeals, pro se , from the order dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541

- 9546, as untimely. Appellant con tends the PCRA court erred in failing to address his claims of guilty plea counsel’s ineffectiveness on the merits. We conclude the court properly recognized Appellant’s petition was time

- barred, and therefore affirm. On April 17, 2015, Appellant entere d a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of assault of a law enforcement officer. That same day the trial court

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant alternates spelling his first n ame “Ridkadmus” and “Rickadamus

. ” T he record indicates his first name is spelled “Rickadm us,” which we shall use here.J

- S57014

- 18

- 2

-

sentenced Appellant to four to ten years’ incarceration, followed by four years’ probation. Appellant did not file post

- sentence motions or a di rect appeal. Over a year later, on August 18, 2016, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who later filed a Turner/Finley 2 “no

- merit” letter and a motion to withdraw. Based on counsel’s “no

- merit” letter and its independent review of the record, the PCRA court issued its notice of intent to summarily dismiss the petition

. Appellant did not respond to the PCRA court’s notice. The court later permitted counsel to withdraw and dismissed Appellant’s petition. This tim ely appeal follows. Prior to reaching the merits of Appellant’s claims on appeal, we must first consider the timeliness of his PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A. 3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014). A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequ ent one, must be filed within one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence becomes final, unless he pleads and proves one of the three exceptions outlined in 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b)(1). A judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct re view by this Court or the United States Supreme Court, or at the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional; therefore, a court may not address the merits of the issues raised if the petition was not timely filed. The timeliness requirements apply to all PCRA petitions, regardless of the nature of the individual claims raised therein. The PCRA squarely places upon the petitioner the burden of proving an untimely petition fits within one o f the three exceptions.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc )

.J

- S57014

- 18

- 3

-

Commonwealth v. Jones , 54 A.3d 14, 16

- 17 (Pa. 2012) (some internal citations and footnote omitted). Appellant ’s judgment of sentence became final on May 18, 2015, 3 when his 30

- day window for filing a notice of ap peal with this Court expired. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)( 3 ); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Appellant’s petition

— filed one year and three months later

— is untimely. Thus, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to review Appellant’s petition unless he was able to succ essfully plead and prove one of the statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s time

- bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)

- (iii). Appellant only pled the ineffective assistance of plea counsel. But claims of ineffective assistance do not present an exception to th e time

- bar. See , e.g. , Commonwealth v. Gamboa - Taylor , 753 A.2d 780 , 785 (Pa. 2000) (“ [A] claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits.”) ; Commonwealth v. Davis , 816 A.2d 1129, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2003) ( “[A]ttempts to utilize ineffective assistance of counsel claims as a means of escaping the jurisdictional time requirements for filing a PCRA petition have been regularly rejected by our courts.”) As Appellant’s PC RA petition was clearly facially untimely, with no exceptions pled, we find the PCRA court properly dismissed the petition.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 The last day of Appellant’s 30

- day appeal period fell on Sunday, May 17, 2015. W e have adjusted the last da y to Monday, May 18, 2015. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908.J

- S57014

- 18

- 4

-

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/14/18