J-S38015-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ARMONTI WOMACK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1723 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 2, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0006811-2016

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED APRIL 20, 2023

Armonti Womack (“Womack”) appeals from the order dismissing his 

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 

Additionally, Womack’s court-appointed appellate counsel, Stephen T. 

O’Hanlon, Esquire (“Attorney O’Hanlon”), has filed a motion to withdraw from 

representation and a “no-merit” letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. 

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 

213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). We grant Attorney O’Hanlon’s motion and 

affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal order.

In 2017, Womack entered an open guilty plea to various firearm 

charges. In 2018, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of five 

to ten years in prison followed by five years of probation. This Court affirmed 

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S38015-22

- 2 -

the judgment of sentence on November 7, 2019. See Commonwealth v. 

Womack, 224 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished memorandum). 

Womack did not seek review in our Supreme Court. 

On April 19, 2021, Womack filed the instant pro se petition, his first. 

The PCRA court appointed counsel who filed an amended petition. The 

Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The PCRA court entered 

a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. 

Womack did not respond to the notice, and on June 2, 2022, the PCRA court 

entered an order dismissing the petition. Womack filed a timely notice of 

appeal. The PCRA court did not order him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise 

statement. Rather than authoring a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court 

elected to rely on the explanation provided in its dismissal order. See PCRA 

Court Letter in Lieu of Opinion, 7/25/22, at 1 (attaching PCRA Court Order, 

6/2/22, at 1); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(1) (providing that, in lieu of 

authoring an opinion explaining the reasons for its order, the PCRA court may 

specify the place in the record where such reasons may be found). In this 

court, Attorney O’Hanlon has filed a motion to withdraw from representation 

and a “no-merit” letter pursuant to Turner/Finley.

Prior to addressing the merits of Womack’s issues, we must address 

Attorney O’Hanlon’s motion to withdraw. Pursuant to Turner/Finley, 

independent review of the record by competent counsel is required before 

withdrawal on collateral appeal is permitted. See Commonwealth v. Pitts, 
J-S38015-22

- 3 -

981 A.2d 875, 876 n.1 (Pa. 2009). In Pitts, our Supreme Court explained 

that such independent review requires proof of:

1. A “no-merit” letter by PC[R]A counsel detailing the nature and 

extent of his review;

2. The “no-merit” letter by PC[R]A counsel listing each issue the 

petitioner wished to have reviewed;

3. The PC[R]A counsel’s “explanation,” in the “no-merit” letter, of 

why the petitioner’s issues were meritless;

4. The PC[R]A court conducting its own independent review of the 

record; and

5. The PC[R]A court agreeing with counsel that the petition was 

meritless.

Id. (citation and brackets omitted). Further, PCRA counsel seeking to

withdraw from representation in this Court must contemporaneously forward

to the petitioner a copy of the petition to withdraw that includes a copy of: (1)

the “no-merit” letter; and (2) a statement advising the PCRA petitioner that,

upon the filing of counsel’s petition to withdraw, the petitioner has the

immediate right to proceed pro se, or with the assistance of privately retained

counsel. See Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509, 511-12 (Pa. Super.

2016). Where counsel submits an application to withdraw and “no-merit”

letter that satisfy the technical demands of Turner/Finley, this Court must

then conduct its own review of the merits of the case. See Commonwealth

v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 454 (Pa. Super. 2012). If this Court agrees with 

counsel that the claims are without merit, the Court will permit counsel to 

withdraw and deny relief. Id.
J-S38015-22

- 4 -

Here, in the Turner/Finley “no-merit” letter that Attorney O’Hanlon

filed in this Court, he described the extent of his review, identified the issues

that Womack raised in his counseled amended petition, and explained why the

issues merited no relief. In addition, Attorney O’Hanlon provided Womack

with a letter notifying him of counsel’s intention to seek permission to

withdraw from representation as well as a copy of the Turner/Finley “nomerit” letter, and advised Womack of his rights in lieu of representation. Thus,

we conclude that Attorney O’Hanlon has substantially complied with the

requirements necessary to withdraw as counsel. See Commonwealth v.

Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 947 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that substantial

compliance with requirements to withdraw as counsel will satisfy the

Turner/Finley criteria). We now independently review Womack’s issues to 

ascertain whether they entitle him to relief.

Our standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is wellsettled:

We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in 

the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.

This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the 

evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it 

is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This 

Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the 

record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the 

factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those 

findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we

afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the

petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de

novo and our scope of review plenary.
J-S38015-22

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations

omitted).

Any PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the judgment 

becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). 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. Id.

§ 9545(b)(3). The PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature, 

and a court may not address the merits of the issues raised if the PCRA petition 

was not timely filed. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 

(Pa. 2010).

In the instant matter, Womack did not seek review in our Supreme 

Court. Therefore, his judgment of sentence became final on December 9, 

2019, upon the expiration of the time in which he could have filed a petition 

for allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court.

2

 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9545(b)(3); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1113 (providing that a petition for allowance 

of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of this Court’s order). 

Womack had until December 9, 2020, to file the instant PCRA petition, but did 

____________________________________________

2 The thirtieth day after November 7, 2019, fell on Saturday, December 7, 

2019. Therefore, Womack had until Monday December 9, 2019, to file a timely 

petition for allowance of appeal. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (providing that 

“[w]henever the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, 

or on any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of 

the United States, such day shall be omitted from the computation”).
J-S38015-22

- 6 -

not do so until April 19, 2021. Thus, Womack’s petition is facially untimely 

under the PCRA.

Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition if the 

petitioner explicitly pleads and proves one of three exceptions set forth under 

section 9545(b)(1), which provides:

(b) Time for filing petition.--

(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or 

subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the 

judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the 

petitioner proves that:

(i) 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 laws of this 

Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;

(ii) 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; or

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized 

by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court 

of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and 

has been held by that court to apply retroactively.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Any petition attempting to invoke one of these 

exceptions must “be filed within one year of the date the claim could have 

been presented.” Id. § 9545(b)(2). 

In his amended counseled petition, Womack claimed that: (1) his guilty 

plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently; (2) his trial 

counsel was ineffective; (3) his sentencing counsel was ineffective; and (4)

his direct appeal counsel was ineffective. See Amended PCRA Petition, 

9/30/21, at 4. Womack did not assert any timeliness exception in his 
J-S38015-22

- 7 -

amended petition. However, in the memorandum of law in support of the 

amended petition, Womack acknowledged that his petition was filed more than 

one year after his judgment of sentence became final, but argued that his 

petition was timely pursuant to section 9545(b)(1)(ii) because he was 

“unaware of the issues raised herein until [PCRA counsel] was appointed on 

April 22, 2021, and [PCRA counsel] concluded that [Womack’s] unconditional 

guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently and that 

his prior counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.” Memorandum of 

Law in Support of Amended Petition, 9/30/21, at unnumbered 4. 

The PCRA court determined that Womack’s petition was untimely and 

that he failed to plead or prove any exception to the PCRA’s time bar. The 

PCRA court reasoned:

The time for filing a petition under the [PCRA] expired on 

December [9], 2020, one year after [Womack’s] judgment of 

sentence became final. [Womack] did not allege or prove that 

any of the exceptions to the filing deadline set forth in 42 

Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9545(b)(1) apply to his petition, so as to extend the 

time for filing. Because [Womack’s] initial pro se petition was not 

filed until April 19, 2021, more than four (4) months after the 

expiration of the time for filing a PCRA petition, the court is 

without jurisdiction to address [Womack’s] claims or grant relief. 

Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed as untimely.

PCRA Court Order, 6/2/22, at n. 1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In Attorney O’Hanlon’s “no-merit” letter, he states that “Womack has 

not cited or argued ay exception to the timeliness requirement and, therefore 

his PCRA [petition] is without merit. “No-Merit” Letter, 9/5/22, at 8.
J-S38015-22

- 8 -

Our review discloses that, contrary to the assertions made by the PCRA 

court and Attorney O’Hanlon, Womack did, in fact, purport to invoke a 

timeliness exception. Specifically, in the brief attached to his counseled 

amended PCRA petition, Womack acknowledged that his petition was filed 

more than one year after his judgment of sentence became final, but claimed 

that his petition was nevertheless timely filed pursuant to section 

9545(b)(1)(ii) because he was “unaware of the issues raised herein until 

[PCRA counsel] was appointed on April 22, 2021, and [PCRA counsel] 

concluded that [Womack’s] unconditional guilty plea was not entered 

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently and that his prior counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance of counsel.” Memorandum of Law in Support of 

Amended Petition, 9/30/21, at unnumbered 4.

Despite this oversight by both the PCRA court and Attorney O’Hanlon, 

Womack is not entitled to relief. See Commonwealth v. Parker, 249 A.3d

590, 595 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that this Court may affirm the PCRA

court’s order on any legal basis supported by the certified record).

Under the “newly-discovered fact” exception to the PCRA’s time bar, a 

PCRA claim need not be filed within the one-year time restriction 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.” 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). The focus of the exception is on the newly 

discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for 
J-S38015-22

- 9 -

previously known facts. See Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 

(Pa. 2017). Thus, where the facts upon which the claim is predicated were

always known to the petitioner, the exception does not apply.

Here, in his first claim, Womack asserted that his guilty plea was not

entered voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. Womack sought to invoke to 

“new fact” exception to the time bar by claiming that he did not discover this 

fact until PCRA counsel was appointed in April 2021. However, if Womack’s 

guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently, he would 

have known this “fact” on October 5, 2017, when he entered his guilty plea.3 

Thus, as Womack could not have satisfied the “new fact” exception to the 

PCRA’s time bar in relation to his guilty plea claim, the PCRA court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider it.

In his remaining three claims, Womack asserted that his trial counsel,

sentencing counsel, and direct appeal counsel were ineffective. Womack 

sought to invoke to “new fact” exception to the time bar by claiming that he 

did not discover that all prior counsel were ineffective until PCRA counsel was 

appointed in April 2021. 

____________________________________________

3 Moreover, a defendant is bound by the statements he makes during his plea 

colloquy. See Commonwealth v. Jabbie, 200 A.3d 500, 506 (Pa. Super. 

2018). Here, Womak is bound by the representations he made to the trial 

court that his guilty plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. 

See N.T., 10/5/17, at 28-37.
J-S38015-22

- 10 -

Our courts have generally rejected attempts to circumvent the PCRA’s 

timeliness requirements by asserting prior counsel’s ineffectiveness as a newly 

discovered fact for purposes of the timeliness exception set forth in section 

9545(b)(1)(ii). See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 

(Pa. 2000) (holding that “subsequent counsel’s review of previous counsel’s 

representation and a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not a 

newly discovered ‘fact’ entitling [the petitioner] to the benefit of the exception 

for after-discovered evidence”); see also Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 

833 A.2d 719, 725-726 (Pa. 2003) (holding that a PCRA petitioner cannot 

establish the “new fact” exception merely by alleging that possible ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims were unknown to the petitioner and could not 

have been discovered until after present counsel reviewed the petitioner’s 

file). Thus, as Womack’s ineffectiveness claims did not constitute a “new fact” 

for purposes of section 9545(b)(1)(ii), the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to 

consider those claims.

4

Having concluded that Womack failed to assert any “new fact” to invoke 

the timeliness exception provided by section 9545(b)(1)(ii), the PCRA court 

____________________________________________

4 While we are mindful that prior counsel’s ineffectiveness may constitute a 

“new fact” for purposes of section 9545(b)(1)(ii) where counsel’s 

ineffectiveness results in the complete deprivation of appellate review, see

Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1273 (Pa. 2007), the amended 

petition did not allege any such deprivation, and our independent review 

discloses none.
J-S38015-22

- 11 -

lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in the amended petition. On 

this basis, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing the petition.

Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw as counsel granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/20/2023