J-S58023-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GARY SMITH,
Appellant No. 203 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 29, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001477-1998
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
Appellant, Gary Smith, appeals pro se
29, 2014 order denying his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In March of 1999, Appellant pled guilty to attempted rape, simple
incarceration. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on August 2,
2000. Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 291 WDA 2000, unpublished
memorandum (Pa. Super. filed August 2, 2000). Appellant did not petition
for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court and, thus, his judgment of
sentence became final on September 2, 2000. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3)
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S58023-14
(stating that a judgment of sentence becomes final at the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking the review); Pa.R.A.P.
the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court within 30 days of the entry of the
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on November 14, 2013. Out of
w -year
timeliness requirement. PCRA Court Opinion, 1/29/14, at 1 (unnumbered
pages). On December 12, 2013, counsel filed a petition to withdraw in
accordance with Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1998), and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). On January 2,
Appellant did not respond, and on January 29, 2014, the court issued an
order dismissing his petition as untimely. Appellant filed a timely pro se
notice of appeal.
quired by Pa.R.A.P. 2116. From what we
can ascertain, however, Appellant argues that his appointed counsel failed to
adequately review the record in his case; his guilty plea is invalid because he
did not receive the agreed upon sentence; and the evidence was insufficient
to support his convictions because the victim did not identify him and there
-2-
J-S58023-14
was no DNA evidence tying him to the crime. Appellant does not argue that
any of these claims satisfy an exception to the PCRA timeliness requirements
set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).1 Consequently, we are without jurisdiction
to review the merits of this appeal.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1
That section states, in relevant part:
(b) Time for filing petition.--
(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second
or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the
date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition
alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(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. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
-3-
J-S58023-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/23/2014
-4-