J

- S36026

- 18

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

v.
JOHN WILSON, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3218 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order August 31, 2017 In the Court of Comm on Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No.: CP

- 51

- CR

- 0743951

- 1991 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 0 2 , 2018 Appellant, John Wilson , appeals pro se from the August 31 , 2017 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing as untimely his six th Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546. We affirm. The underlying facts are not relevant to the instant appeal. Briefly, on April 8, 1992, Appellant entered a negotiated plea to , inter alia , First

- Degree Murder

. That same day , the trial court imposed the negotiated sentence of life imprisonment

. Appellant did not file a direct appeal

. Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence thus became final thirty days later on May 8 , 1992 , upon expiration of the time to file a direct appeal

. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 (b)(3)

. Over the next several decades , Appellant filed five unsuccessful PCRA
Petition s . On June 16 , 2016, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition ,J

- S36026

- 18

- 2

-

his sixth, seeking to invoke Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). 1 On August 31 , 2017, the PCRA court dismissed the instant PCRA Petition without a hearing after providing notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. 2 Appellant timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal. The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Errors. The PCRA court filed a brief Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion with its dismissal O rder and opined that (1) Appellant’s PCRA Petition was untimely , and (2) no timeliness exception applied since Appellant was ineligible for relief under Miller and Montgomery because he “was over the age of eighteen at the time of his offense

. ” PCRA Court Opinion, filed 8/31/17, at 1. Appellant presents one issue for our review: Whether Appellant is entitled to Post Conviction Relief based on newly discovered evidence regarding Brain Science and Social Science? Appellant’s Brief at 3 (suggested answer omitted).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 In Miller , the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for state courts to impose an automatic life sentence without possibility of parol e upon a homicide defendant for a murder committed while the defendant was under eighteen years old

. The United States Supreme Court held in Montgomery that its decision in Miller applies retroactively.

2 Appellant alternatively titled his filing as a “Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief.” The PCRA court properly treated Appellant’s filing as a PCRA Petition. See Commonwealth v. Taylor , 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that “a defendant cannot e scape the PCRA time

- bar by titling his petition or motion as a writ of habeas corpus .”).J

- S36026

- 18

- 3

-

We review the denial of a PCRA p etition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court’s fin dings and whether its o rder is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears , 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). Before addressing the merits of Appellant’s PCRA claims, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the underlying PCR A
Petition. See Commonwealth v. Hackett , 956 A.2d 978, 983 (Pa. 2008) (explaining that the timeliness of a PCRA Petition is a jurisdictional requisite). Under the PCRA, any Petition “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one yea r of the date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 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.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 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. Comm onwealth v. Albrecht , 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). Here, Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence became final on May 8 , 1992 , when his time for filing a direct appeal expired. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 (b)(3)

. The instant Petition, filed more than 2 4 years after his Judgment of Sentence became final, is facially untimely. Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely PCRA petition, however, if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the three exceptions set forth in 42J

- S36026

- 18

- 4

-

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). Here, in citing the “brain science” studies discussed in Miller and Montgomery , Appellant attempts to invoke the timeliness exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), which provides that a petitioner may seek relief when “the facts upon which the claim is pr edicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). Our Supreme Court has expressly held that “subsequent decisional law does not amount to a new ‘fact’ under [S] ection 9545(b)(1)(ii)[.]” Commonwealth v. Watts , 23 A.3d 980, 987 (Pa. 2011). Further, Appellant ’s reliance on the “brain science” studies discussed in Miller and Montgomery

a s the “newly discovered fact” garners no relief. Th o se studies were published years before th e judicial decision. Appellant failed to prove that he filed the instant Petition within 60 days of the publication of that research discussed in Miller and Montgomery , and does not successfully demonstrate why he could not have discovered these facts any earlier when they were available. Accordingly, the PCRA court properly concluded that Appellant failed to plead and prove any of the timeliness exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1), and properly dismissed Appellant’s Petition as untimely. See PCRA Court Opinion at 1

. The record supports the PCRA court’s findings and its Order is otherwise free of legal error. Accordingly, we affirm. Order affirmed.J

- S36026

- 18

- 5

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/2/18