J-S75032-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

HOWARD COOPER, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2742 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 25, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007279-2009

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 23, 2019

Howard Cooper (“Cooper”) appeals, pro se, from the Order dismissing 

his second Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The PCRA court previously set forth the relevant factual history as 

follows:

On February 14, 2009, [at] approximately 2:45 [p.m.], 

Philadelphia Police Officer Jason Sommerville was driving his 

personal car in the 2600 block of North Broad Street, Philadelphia, 

PA[,] when he observed [the victim], Mathew Bullock, run in front 

of his vehicle[,] being chased by [Cooper]. [Cooper], who was 

holding a silver knife, grabbed [Bullock], and punched [Bullock] in 

the face with the knife several times. [Bullock] fell to the 

ground[,] and [Cooper] continued stabbing [Bullock] in the face 

and chest as he lay in the center of Broad Street. Officer 

Sommerville exited his vehicle, identified himself, and ordered 

[Cooper] to drop the knife. [Cooper] fled and [Officer] 

Sommerville pursued him. [Officer] Sommerville apprehended 

[Cooper,] who had discarded the knife into an empty lot. [Officer] 

Sommerville contacted police radio and relayed what had 

occurred[,] at which point [Cooper] got up and engaged in a 
J-S75032-18

- 2 -

struggle with [Officer] Sommerville[,] threatening to kill him. 

[Cooper] continued to make threats towards other police officers 

who arrived on the scene and he stated that it was [his] intention 

to kill [Bullock]. An autopsy was performed on [Bullock’s] 

remains[,] which revealed eight stab wounds to the face, chest, 

abdomen, back, buttock and knee, and several slash wounds.

PCRA Court Opinion, 7/16/13, at 2-3.

On October 13, 2010, Cooper entered a negotiated guilty plea to thirddegree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, and aggravated 

assault.1 The trial court sentenced Cooper, pursuant to the plea agreement, 

to an aggregate term of 20 to 50 years in prison. Cooper did not file a direct 

appeal.2

Cooper, pro se, filed his first PCRA Petition on December 23, 2010. The 

PCRA court appointed Cooper counsel, who subsequently filed a Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel, 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). Following appropriate notice pursuant to 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court dismissed Cooper’s Petition on October 15, 

2012. Cooper filed a Notice of Appeal. On October 31, 2012, the PCRA court 

granted counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, and ordered Cooper to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. By Order 

dated April 1, 2013, this Court remanded the case to the PCRA court, because 

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 907(a), 2702.

2 Cooper later filed an untimely post-sentence Motion, seeking to withdraw his 

guilty plea, and requesting that the trial court vacate his sentence. The trial 

court denied the Motion without a hearing.
J-S75032-18

- 3 -

counsel was not permitted to withdraw until Cooper was directed to file a 

concise statement. The PCRA court thereafter issued an Order directing 

Cooper to file a concise statement, and Cooper timely complied. This Court 

affirmed the dismissal of Cooper’s first PCRA Petition. See Commonwealth 

v. Cooper, 105 A.3d 796 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished memorandum).3

Cooper filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition on May 23, 2017, 

challenging his mental competency at the time he entered his guilty plea, and 

the effectiveness of both his plea and first PCRA counsel. The PCRA court 

subsequently issued a Rule 907 Notice, and Cooper filed a Response. The 

PCRA court dismissed Cooper’s Petition as untimely filed on July 25, 2017. 

Cooper filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

Concise Statement.4

Initially, under the PCRA, any PCRA petition, “including a second or 

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

becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (emphasis added). A judgment 

of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct review, including 

____________________________________________

3 Cooper later filed a Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

Nunc Pro Tunc, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied on November 

19, 2014. See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 103 A.3d 1292 (Pa. 2014).

4 Cooper filed two separate appellate briefs with this Court—one handwritten 

and one typed. On July 17, 2018, this Court entered a Rule to Show Cause 

Order, directing Cooper to specify which brief he intended to rely upon, and 

stating that a failure to respond by July 31, 2018, would result in this Court’s 

reliance on the handwritten brief. Cooper did not respond to the Rule to Show 

Cause, and on August 14, 2018, this Court entered an Order designating 

Cooper’s handwritten brief as the Brief for Appellant.
J-S75032-18

- 4 -

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. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 

994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).

Our standard of review of an order [dismissing] PCRA relief 

is whether the record supports the PCRA court’s determination and 

whether the PCRA court’s decision is free of legal error. The PCRA 

court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for 

the findings in the certified record.

Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations 

omitted).

Here, Cooper’s judgment of sentence became final in August 2014, 

when the time for seeking allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court expired. Thus, Cooper’s second Petition, filed in May 2017, is facially 

untimely.

However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition if the 

appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Any petition invoking one of these exceptions 

“shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” 

Id. § 9545(b)(2); Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094.
J-S75032-18

- 5 -

Cooper invokes, in his Concise Statement and his Summary of the 

Argument,

5

the “governmental interference” exception set forth at 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i). Cooper argues that “every time [he] is given a 

briefing schedule with a deadline he is persistantly [sic] targeted with 

fabricated misconducts” and placed in the restricted housing unit at SCI –

Greene. Brief for Appellant at 15 (renumbered). Cooper claims that he was 

unable to receive legal assistance through the prison law library during his 

restricted confinement, and that his PCRA was time-barred by the time of his 

release from the restricted housing unit. Id. (renumbered). Cooper states 

that he was “railroaded” during his placement in the restricted housing unit, 

and therefore, was unable to file a “timely appeal brief.” Id. at 17 

(renumbered).

In order to satisfy the “governmental interference” exception to the 

PCRA’s timeliness requirement, a petitioner must plead and prove that “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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i); see also Commonwealth v. 

Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 52 (Pa. 2006). Here, Cooper fails to explain how the 

alleged actions interfered with his ability to discover or present any particular 

claim. Indeed, in his first PCRA Petition, Cooper previously raised his claims 

____________________________________________

5 Cooper does not otherwise address this claim in the Argument section of his 

brief.
J-S75032-18

- 6 -

challenging his mental competency at the time he entered his plea, and the 

effectiveness of his plea counsel, and this Court determined that the claims 

lacked merit. See Cooper, 105 A.3d 796 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished 

memorandum). Further, as the PCRA court noted in its Opinion, Cooper 

previously had acknowledged receiving legal assistance at the SCI – Greene 

law library and through the Department of Corrections. See PCRA Court 

Opinion, 12/27/17, at 4; see also Brief for Appellant at 15-18. Cooper

therefore failed to satisfy the “governmental interference” exception to the 

PCRA’s timeliness requirement.6

Accordingly, because Cooper did not successfully invoke any of the three 

exceptions necessary to circumvent the PCRA’s timeliness requirement, we 

affirm the PCRA court’s Order dismissing Cooper’s Petition as untimely filed.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/23/19

____________________________________________

6 Cooper failed to include his remaining claim, concerning the effectiveness of 

his first PCRA counsel, in his Concise Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii). Additionally, “claims of ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel will 

not overcome the timeliness requirements of the PCRA....” Commonwealth 

v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875, 883 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted).