J

- S24034

- 18

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

v.
EDWARD PRINTUP,

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1282 MDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order July 13, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0001191

- 1980 BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 23, 2018 Edward Printup (“Printup”) appeals, pro se , from the Order dismissing his fifth Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546. We affirm. On December 15, 1980, a jury found Printup guilty of first

- degree murder , arising out of the death of Printup’ s ste p - father

. On March 11, 1981, Printup was sentenced to life in prison. On May 19, 1986 , this Court affirmed the judg ment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Printup , 512 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Super. 1986) (unpublished memorandum). Printup subsequently filed four PCRA petitions , all of which were denied. On October 4, 2016, Printup filed the instant fifth PCRA Petition . On April 28, 2017, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim .P. 907 Notice of intent to dismiss the Petition

. Printup filed a response to the Rule 907 Notice.J

- S24034

- 18

- 2

-

Thereafter, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition. Printup filed a timely Notice of Appeal

. 1 “On appeal from the [dismissal] of PCRA relief, our standard of review calls for us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Nero , 58 A.3d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation o mitted)

. The PCRA requires that any PCRA petition “shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence becomes final “at the conclusion of direct review, includi ng discretionary rev iew in the S upreme 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 peti tion was not timely filed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). Printup’s judgment of sentence became final on June 18, 1986, at the expiration of the 30

- day period to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a). Thus, Print up’s instant Petition, filed in October 2016, is facially untimely under the PCRA. However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition where the petitioner pleads and proves one of the three exceptions set forth at 42

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 We note Printup also fil ed a Motion for DNA testing, which was denied on August 9, 2017. T he denial of this Motion is not before us in this appeal.J

- S24034

- 18

- 3

-

Pa.C. S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)

- (iii). Any PCRA 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. Printup invokes all three exceptions at section 9545(b)(1) and asserts that the decisions in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012) , and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) , render his sentence illegal

. Brief for Appellant at 17. In Miller , the United States Supreme Court prohibited mandatory sentences of life without parole applied to juveniles under the age of 18 at the time of offense. Miller , 567 U.S. at 465. In Montgomery , the United States Supreme Court held Miller applied retroactively. See Montgome ry 136 S. Ct. at 736. Here, Printup filed his Petition well past 60 days after the decisions in Miller (June 25, 2012) and Montgomery (January 25, 2016 ). See Commonwealth v. Brandon 51 A.3d 231, 235 (Pa. Super. 2012) (noting that the 60

- day period under section 9545(b)(2) “ begins to r un upon the date of the underlying judicial decision.”) (citation omitted). Further, Montgomery and Miller are inapplicable to this case because Printup was nineteen years old when he committed the crime. 2 See PCRA

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 In his brief, Printup claims that there is an issue with regard to his birth date, which would demonstrate that he was under the age of eighteen at the time of the murder. Brief for Appellant at 17. However, Printup failed to raise such a claim in his PCRA Petition, or provide any substantive proof to support the claim. See Commonwealth v. Ousley , 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super

.J

- S24034

- 18

- 4

-

Court Opinion, 4/28/17, at 4; s ee also Commonwealth v. Furgess , 149 A.3d 90, 94 (Pa. Super. 2016) (noting that “petitioners who were older than 18 at the time they committed murder are not within the ambit of the Miller decision and therefore may not rely on that decision to bring themselves within the time bar exception in Section 9545(b)(1)(iii).”). Therefore, Printup has failed to plead and prove any of the exception s provided in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1) (i)

- (iii) to ov ercome the untimeliness of his P eti tion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 07/23/2018

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2011) (noting th at “issues not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be considered on appeal.”) (citation omitted).