J-S36032-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

JAMES EDWARD MITCHELL,

 Appellant

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

: 

: No. 1879 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 27, 2014, 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-02-CR-0001924-1997

BEFORE: PANELLA, JENKINS, and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 09, 2015

James Edward Mitchell (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order 

entered October 27, 2014, dismissing his fourth petition filed pursuant to the 

Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 We affirm.

Generally, a PCRA petition must be filed within one year from the 

date a judgment becomes final. There are three exceptions to 

this time requirement: (1) interference by government officials 

in the presentation of the claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and 

(3) an after-recognized constitutional right. When a petitioner 

alleges and proves that one of these exceptions is met, the 

petition will be considered timely. A PCRA petition invoking one 

of these exceptions must be filed within 60 days of the date the 

claims could have been presented. The timeliness requirements 

of the PCRA are jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, a PCRA 

court cannot hear untimely petitions. 

Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted).

 

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S36032-15

-2-

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on January 5, 

2003, 90 days after the expiration of the time for seeking discretionary 

review with the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); 

U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. The instant PCRA petition, filed on July 28, 2014, is 

patently untimely. The PCRA court had no jurisdiction to entertain 

Appellant’s petition unless he pled and offered proof of one or more of the 

three statutory exceptions to the time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). 

Appellant failed to do so in his PCRA petition.2 Accordingly, the PCRA court 

properly dismissed his petition.

Order affirmed.

 

2 Appellant claims that the instant petition is timely because it was filed 

within 60 days of the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. 

PCRA Petition, 7/28/2014, at 5. This averment does not satisfy any of the 

timeliness requirements under section 9545(b). Indeed, the first time 

Appellant attempted to invoke a valid timeliness exception was in his Reply 

Brief to this Court. The PCRA clearly and unambiguously requires any 

petition filed pursuant thereto to “be filed within one year of the date the 

judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner 

proves” one of the three exceptions quoted above. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) 

(emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 

466, 468-69 (Pa. Super. 2007), Moreover, to the extent that Appellant 

purports to challenge the legality of his sentence, we note that, “[a]lthough 

legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must 

still first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or one of the exceptions thereto.” 

Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 592 (Pa. Super. 2007).
J-S36032-15

-3-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/9/2015