J-S41006-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROBBIE O. THOMAS,

Appellant No. 3191 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 5, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-51-CR-1004712-1990

CP-51-CR-1053792-1990

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 23, 2016

Appellant, Robbie O. Thomas, appeals pro se from the post-conviction 

court’s October 5, 2015 order denying, as untimely, his fourth petition filed 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We 

affirm.

The PCRA court summarized the procedural history of Appellant’s case 

as follows:

On November 1, 1991, following a jury trial, [Appellant] 

was convicted of first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, 

possession of an instrument of crime and unlawful restraint. On 

June 18, 1993, the trial court imposed a sentence of life 

imprisonment for murder and suspended sentencing for the 

related offenses. On July 18, 1994, following a direct appeal, 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41006-16

- 2 -

the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.2 The 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on December 9, 

1994.3

2 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 649 A.2d 464 (Pa. Super. 

1994)(unpublished memorandum).

3 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 653 A.2d 1230 (Pa. 1994).

[Appellant] filed his first pro se PCRA petition on November 

18, 1996.4 Counsel was appointed and subsequently filed a 

Turner/Finley no-merit letter.5 The PCRA court denied the 

petition on June 23, 1998. The Superior Court affirmed the 

PCRA court’s denial on November 24, 1999.6 Our Supreme 

Court denied allocatur on April 11, 2000.7

4 The current version of the PCRA contains a provision 

permitting a defendant whose conviction became final prior 

to January 16, 1996, the date the current version of the 

PCRA took effect, to file a timely first PCRA petition within 

one year of that date. See Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 

703 A.2d 1054, 1056-57 (Pa. Super. 1997)(holding that 

where a petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final on 

or before the effective date of the amendment to the 

PCRA, the amended PCRA contained a provision whereby a 

first PCRA petition could be filed by January 16, 1997, 

even if the conviction in question became final more than a 

year prior to the date of the filing).

5 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), 

and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 

1988)(en banc).

6 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 748 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 

1999)(unpublished memorandum).

7 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 757 A.2d 932 (Pa. 2000).

[Appellant] filed his second pro se PCRA petition on 

October 18, 2004. Following the appointment of counsel, a 

Turner/Finley no-merit letter was filed. The PCRA court 

subsequently dismissed the petition on June 19, 2006. The 

Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s dismissal on October 

10, 2007.8 Our Supreme Court denied allocatur on August 13, 

2008.9

8 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 943 A.2d 324 (Pa. Super. 

2007)(unpublished memorandum).
J-S41006-16

- 3 -

9 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 959 A.2d 929 (Pa. 2008).

[Appellant] filed his third PCRA petition on September 25, 

2009. The PCRA court subsequently dismissed the petition as 

untimely on December 17, 2010. The Superior Court affirmed 

the PCRA court’s dismissal on September 6, 2011.10

10 Commonwealth v. Thomas, 34 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 

2011)(unpublished memorandum).

[Appellant’s] current PCRA petition, his fourth, was filed 

pro se on January 8, 2013. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 907, [Appellant] was served with notice of 

the court’s intention to dismiss his PCRA petition on August 3, 

2015. [He did not file a response.] The PCRA court dismissed 

[Appellant’s] petition as untimely on October 5, 2015. [He] filed 

the instant notice of appeal to the Superior Court on October 15, 

2015.

PCRA Court Opinion (PCO), 11/12/15, at 1-2.

Appellant was not directed by the PCRA court to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. However, the 

PCRA court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 12, 2015. Appellant 

does not set forth in his brief to this Court a statement of the question(s) 

sought to be reviewed, and his brief, as a whole, is nearly comprehensible. 

From what we can ascertain, Appellant seeks to raise three claims, which we 

summarize as follows: 

I. Appellant’s plea was unlawfully induced because he was 

mentally ill at the time the plea was entered. 

II. Appellant’s plea counsel acted ineffectively by coercing 

Appellant to enter his plea when Appellant was mentally ill at the 

time.

III. Appellant’s sentence is illegal.

See Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 and 7.
J-S41006-16

- 4 -

This Court’s standard of review regarding an order denying a petition 

under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported 

by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. 

Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We must begin by addressing the 

timeliness of Appellant’s petition, because the PCRA time limitations 

implicate our jurisdiction and may not be altered or disregarded in order to 

address the merits of a petition. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 

1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, any petition for post-conviction 

relief, including a second or subsequent one, must be filed within one year of 

the date the judgment of sentence becomes final, unless one of the following 

exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies:

(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. 
J-S41006-16

- 5 -

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition attempting to invoke one of 

these exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could 

have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).

Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on March 9, 

1995, upon the expiration of 90 day time period for filing a writ of certiorari

with the United States Supreme Court. Thus, his current petition, filed in 

January of 2013, is patently untimely, and for this Court to have jurisdiction 

to review the merits of Appellant’s claims, he must prove that he meets one 

of the exceptions to the timeliness requirements set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b). 

Again, Appellant’s brief to this Court is extremely confusing. From 

what we are able to understand, the main thrust of his argument is that his 

plea was unlawfully induced because he was mentally ill. He seems to 

suggest that he did not know that he was mentally ill at the time he pled 

guilty, and only later discovered that fact. Even if we interpret Appellant’s 

argument as an attempt to satisfy the after-discovered fact exception of 

section 9545(b)(1)(ii), he waived this claim by failing to present it in his 

PCRA petition. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court 

are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). 

In any event, Appellant has also failed to prove that he acted with due 

diligence in discovering this claim, or that he filed his petition within 60 days 

thereof. Appellant mentions a report by a psychiatrist from 2008, but his 

petition was not filed until 2013. See Appellant’s Brief at 7. He does not 
J-S41006-16

- 6 -

explain why he was unable to discover his mental illness earlier, or argue 

that he filed his petition within 60 days of when this claim could have first 

been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated the applicability 

of the after-discovered fact exception of section 9545(b)(1)(ii), or that he 

satisfied section 9545(b)(2).

Appellant’s other two claims also fail to meet any timeliness exception. 

Appellant alludes that his attorney was ineffective for coercing him to enter a 

guilty plea despite his mental illness. “It is well settled that allegations of 

ineffective assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdictional 

timeliness requirements of the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 

A.2d 1120, 1127 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted). Appellant also baldly 

contends that his sentence is illegal, which also fails, in and of itself, to 

satisfy a timeliness exception. Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 

223 (Pa. 1999) (holding that claims challenging the legality of sentence are 

subject to review within PCRA, but must first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits).

In sum, Appellant has not proven that a timeliness exception applies 

to any of his claims. Therefore, we ascertain no abuse of discretion by the 

PCRA court in denying his facially untimely petition.

Order affirmed.
J-S41006-16

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/23/2016