J-S40039-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT YOUNGS, III
Appellant No. 62 MDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0004436-2000
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
Appellant, Robert Youngs, III, appeals pro se from the order entered
on December 6, 2013, by the Honorable Thomas G. Parisi, Court of Common
Pleas of Berks County, which denied his second petition filed pursuant to the
1
Post- After careful review, we affirm.
Following a trial on March 6, 2001, a jury convicted Youngs of murder
of the first degree, aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime, and
firearms not to be carried without a license. On April 12, 2001, the trial court
sentenced Youngs to life in prison for the murder conviction, followed by
____________________________________________
1
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S40039-14
This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on August 6, 2003. Young did
not seek allocator in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On September 3, 2004, Youngs filed a PCRA petition, which the PCRA
court denied and this Court affirmed on August 23, 2006. Nearly seven years
later, on June 12, 2013, Youngs filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court
denied the petition. In dismissing the PCRA petition, the court found that
Youngs failed to prove that any exceptions to the time bar provided in 42
PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) apply. This appeal follows.
and rambling. We agree with the PCRA court that Youngs raises two issues
on appeal. First he claims the PCRA court erred by denying his PCRA petition
when his conviction was based on, in his terms, a fraud upon the court.
Specifically, that the Commonwealth presented the false and misleading
testimony at trial of three witnesses and that the district attorney and
criminal investigator intentionally failed to provide the original crime scene
record.
-
conviction relief is well settled. We must examine whether the record
supports
determination is free of legal error. See Commonwealth v. Hall, 867 A.2d
-2-
J-S40039-14
unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. See
Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2001). Our
scope of review is limited by the parameters of the PCRA. See
Commonwealth v. Heilman, 867 A.2d 542, 544 (Pa. Super. 2005).
A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date that the
judgment of sentence becomes final. See 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. §
The PCRA timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature
Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 854 A.2d 489, 509 (Pa. 2004).
Youngs did not seek a petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme
Court. Thus, his judgment of sentence became final on Monday, September
6, 2004. Youngs filed the present PCRA petition his second on June 12,
2013, which is well outside the one-year time period. (It is eight years, nine
months, and six days too late.)
jurisdiction to grant [him] relief unless he can plead and prove that one of
the exceptions to the time bar provided in 42 [PA.CONS.STAT.ANN.] §
9545(b)(1)(i)- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 561 Pa. 214, 220,
749 A.2d 911, 914-915 (2000). See also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824
A.2d 331, 335 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 712,
839 A.2d 352 (2003)
-3-
J-S40039-14
review focuses on whether Appellant has pled and proven that one of the
To invoke a timeliness exception, a petitioner must prove one of the
following:
(i) 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;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to
the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the
exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized
by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and
has been held by that court to apply retroactively
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).
Youngs first argues that the Commonwealth intentionally presented, at
trial, the false and misleading testimony of three witnesses. This is the
testimony was false. As before, his evidence of the false and misleading
nature of her testimony is that it was, in his opinion, inconsistent. He makes
the same argument, that the testimony was false and misleading as it was
inconsistent, for the two other witnesses, Amy Tyron and Officer Michael
Dobrosky. These claims do not come within the purview of any of the three
exceptions in § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).
Youngs next claims that the district attorney and criminal investigator
intentionally failed to provide to the defense at trial the original crime scene
-4-
J-S40039-14
photographs. (At trial, the Commonwealth provided replacement
photographs.) Even assuming for the sake of argument that this claim
somehow constitutes after-discovered evidence, Youngs has completely
failed to even plead that he
545(b)(2). As such, this
claim fails. See Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 869 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa.
Super. 2005).
his petition is not supported by the record. Youngs filed a patently untimely
time bar. Accordingly, this claim fails.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2014
-5-
J-S40039-14
-6-