J-S43035-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEPHEN JONES

Appellant No. 3188 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 3, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0305501-2003

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 21, 2015

Appellant, Stephen Jones, appeals pro se from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his second 

petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 9541-9546. On March 7, 2005, a jury convicted Appellant of thirddegree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and conspiracy. The 

court sentenced Appellant on April 29, 2005, to an aggregate term of 35-70 

years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence 

on August 11, 2006, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on 

January 4, 2007. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 909 A.2d 880 (Pa.Super. 

2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 661, 916 A.2d 631 (2007). On June 15, 

2007, Appellant timely filed his first PCRA petition, which the court denied on 

July 14, 2008. This Court affirmed the order denying relief on December 18, 
J-S43035-15

- 2 -

2009, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on December 29, 

2010. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 990 A.2d 47 (Pa.Super. 2009), 

appeal denied, 608 Pa. 646, 12 A.3d 370 (2010). On August 5, 2013, 

Appellant filed the current, second pro se PCRA petition. The court issued 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on August 18, 2014; Appellant responded on 

September 3, 2014. The court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely on 

October 3, 2014. On October 31, 2014, Appellant timely filed a pro se

notice of appeal. On November 10, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file 

a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b), and Appellant timely complied.

The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite. 

Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 

___ Pa. ___, 91 A.3d 162 (2014). A PCRA petition must be filed within one 

year of the date the underlying judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at the conclusion of direct review or 

at the expiration of time for seeking review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). 

The three statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness provisions allow for 

very limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be 

excused; and a petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a 

petition within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (b)(2). Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence became final on April 4, 2007, upon expiration of the time to file a 
J-S43035-15

- 3 -

petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. See

U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13 (allowing 90 days to file petition for writ of certiorari). 

Appellant filed the current petition on August 5, 2013, which is patently 

untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Additionally, Appellant did not 

allege any exception to the PCRA’s time-bar in his PCRA petition.1 See id. 

Thus, the court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely.2

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant attaches to his appellate brief a motion to amend his PCRA 

petition and an amended PCRA petition, which Appellant claims he filed one 

day after the court denied his current PCRA petition, but before Appellant 

had received notice of the denial. The motion and amended petition do not 

appear on the docket entries or in the certified record. In this amended 

petition, Appellant attempts to assert the “new constitutional right” 

exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, claiming the court imposed an unlawful 

mandatory minimum sentence based on the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 

(2013). Even if we could consider this amended petition, Appellant’s claim 

would afford no relief. See Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 

(Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (explaining Alleyne applies only to criminal 

cases still pending on direct review); Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 

988 (Pa.Super. 2014) (holding Alleyne did not announce new constitutional 

right that has been held to apply retroactively, to satisfy PCRA’s time-bar 

exception). 

2 Appellant also claims he was entitled to appointment of counsel in litigating 

his current PCRA petition. Because the current petition is Appellant’s second 

PCRA petition and the court determined an evidentiary hearing was 

unnecessary, Appellant’s claim fails. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C); 904(D). 
J-S43035-15

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/21/2015