petition filed on April 27, 2017, would be dismissed in
accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.4 Appellant filed a response on October 29,
2018. On January 10, 2019, the court dismissed the petition. This timely
appeal followed. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
In this appeal, Appellant asks us to consider four issues, which we set
forth here verbatim:
1. WHETHER APPELLANT SATISFIED THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF 42 PA.C.S. § 9545(B)(1)(i-iii)(2) WHEN HIS APRIL [27], 2017 PCRA PETITION WAS FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURTS MARCH 28, 2017 ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMONWEALTH-V-BURTON, 2015 PA SUPER 176, WAP 2016 AND PROPERLY PLED STATUTORY EXCEPTION 42 PA.C.S. § 9545(B)(1)(III)?
2. WHETHER APPELLANT'S SENTENCE IS LAWFUL WHEN THERE IS NO SENTENCING STATUTE AUTHORIZING A MANDATORY LIFE IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE UNDER 18 PA.C.S. § 1102 FOR SECOND DEGREE MURDER AS OF HIS 12/27/91 CONVICTION AND 4/8/94 SENTENCING; AND THIS COURT DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUITY TO IMPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE UPON FINDING THAT NO AGGRAVATING FACTORS WERE PRESENT TO WARRANT A MANDATORY LIFE IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE AND/OR TO HEAR MITIGATING FACTORS AND TO TAILOR AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE TO ADDRESS THE REHABILITIVE NEED OF THE 20 YEAR OLD CHILD/JUVENILE (42 PA.C.S. § 6138 GIVES 18, 19 AND 21 YEARS OF AGE FOR A CHILD)? ____________________________________________
4 The document filed by Appellant on December 27, 2016 was actually a letter directed to the Honorable Jeffrey Minehart, who had dismissed Appellant's fifth PCRA petition as untimely. On April 27, 2017, Appellant "supplemented" the letter with a document titled, "Petition under [PCRA]." PCRA Petition, 4/27/17, at 1. The matter was assigned to the Honorable Genece Brinkley, who considered the filings jointly before issuing the Rule 907 notice.
J-S49022-19
3. WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL WHEN THE SUPERIOR COURT PANEL ANNOUNCED IN ITS JULY 14, 2015 NONPRECENDENTIAL DECISION FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT APPELLANT'S TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY LOST AND THERE IS NO TRANSCRIBED RECORD OF APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW?
4. WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO REMAND, DEVELOPMENT OF RECORD AND/OR A NEW TRIAL BASED UPON: THE SUPRESSED 75-48S (POLICE REPORTS), MAY 28, 2013 AFFIDAVIT OF KEVIN M. LEWIS; ADAs BARBARA CHRISTIE, THOMAS PERRICONE, AND DETECTIVES MISCONDUCT; AND THE KNOWINGLY USED PERJURED TESTIMONY OF ALVIN "EYEBALL" MORGAN AND KEVIN M. LEWIS LEFT UNCORRECTED BY ADA PERRICONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN TO APPELLANT, BUT THAT HAS SINCE BEEN REVEALED/DISCOVERED?
Appellant's Brief at vi.
"On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review is
whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free
of legal error." Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007)
(citations omitted). All PCRA petitions, "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). The one-year time limitation, however, can be
overcome if a petitioner (1) alleges and proves one of the three exceptions
set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) of the PCRA, and (2) files