J-S75041-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WONCIEL CURRAN,
Appellant No. 1552 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered March 28, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0208821-2001
BEFORE: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and MUNDY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2014
Wonciel Curran (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the order denying
his untimely petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We affirm.
The PCRA court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history
as follows:
Thirteen years ago, in 2001, Appellant pled guilty to
sexual assault and corruption of a minor and was
sentenced to 11½ to 23 months [of incarceration,]
followed by three years of probation. Appellant
subsequently violated the terms of his probation and was
resentenced to 5 to 10 years on each charge on May 20,
2003. No direct appeal was filed.
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on June 19, 2012,
alleging that he was unlawfully induced into entering a
plea of guilt, that his counsel was ineffective, and that his
constitutional rights were violated. PCRA counsel was
appointed, but he did not file an amended petition.
Instead, counsel filed a no-merit Finley letter, alleging he
J-S75041-14
had reviewed the quarter session file, all available notes of
testimony, and had corresponded with Appellant. Based
upon his review, counsel stated that Appellant’s petition
was untimely and that no applicable exception to the filing
requirement applied. Accordingly, counsel sought leave to
withdraw from the case.
On February 24, 2014, this court gave Appellant the
requisite notice of its intent to dismiss his petition without
a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. [] 907(a). Appellant
filed a timely response, but did [not] address the
timeliness of his petition. On March 28, 2014, this court
dismissed the petition and granted counsel’s request to
withdraw. Appellant filed the instant appeal on April 11,
2014.
PCRA Court Opinion, 5/20/14, at 1-2.
This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a
petition under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is
supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795, 799 n.2 (Pa. 2005). The PCRA
court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the
findings in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164,
1166 (Pa. Super. 2001). Moreover, a PCRA court may decline to hold a
hearing on the petition if the PCRA court determines that the petitioner’s
claim is patently frivolous and is without a trace of support in either the
record or from other evidence. Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011
(Pa. Super. 2001).
-2-
J-S75041-14
Before addressing the issues Appellant presents on appeal,1 we must
first consider whether the PCRA court properly determined that his petition
was untimely. The timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional.
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010) (citation
omitted). Thus, if a petition is untimely, neither an appellate court nor the
PCRA court has jurisdiction over the petition. Id. “Without jurisdiction, we
simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims”
raised in an untimely petition. Id.
Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA, including a second or
subsequent petition, must be filed within one year of the date the judgment
becomes final unless the petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, an
exception to the time for filing the petition. Commonwealth v. Gamboa-
Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Under
these exceptions, the petitioner must plead and prove that: “(1) there has
been interference by government officials in the presentation of the claim; or
(2) there exists after-discovered facts or evidence; or (3) a new
constitutional right has been recognized.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s pro se brief does not include a statement of questions involved
on appeal, and otherwise fails to comply with the briefing requirements of
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. We do not dispose of
Appellant’s appeal based upon a defective brief, however, because the
untimeliness of his PCRA petition is evident. See generally,
Commonwealth v. Snyder, 870 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. 2005).
-3-
J-S75041-14
A.2d 586, 591 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). A PCRA petition
invoking one of these statutory exceptions must “be filed within sixty days of
the date the claim first could have been presented.” Gamboa-Taylor, 753
A.2d at 783. See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). Moreover, exceptions to
the time restrictions of the PCRA must be pled in the petition, and may not
be raised for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Burton, 936
A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super. 2007); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not
raised before the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal.”).
Because Appellant did not file a direct appeal to this Court following
the imposition of his revocation sentence, his judgment of sentence became
final on June 19, 2003, thirty days after the time for filing a direct appeal to
this Court had expired. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). Therefore, Appellant
had to file his petition by June 19, 2004, in order for it to be timely. As
Appellant filed the instant motion on June 19, 2012, it is untimely unless he
has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that one of the enumerated
exceptions applies. See Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258, 1261
(Pa. 1999).
Appellant has failed to plead and prove any exception to the PCRA’s
time bar. Appellant’s pro se brief presents a rambling, unintelligible
discourse involving many federal and state statutes, as well as the perceived
constitutional infirmities to his convictions. To the extent we understand
-4-
J-S75041-14
them, none of Appellant’s assertions reference the pertinent provisions of
the PCRA, or establish any of the exceptions to the PCRA’s time bar. Thus,
the PCRA court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
Appellant’s PCRA petition. We therefore affirm the PCRA court’s order
denying Appellant post-conviction relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2014
-5-