J-S17031-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ARTHUR DUNN
Appellant No. 1207 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 18, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008051-1997
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 18, 2015
Appellant, Arthur Dunn, appeals from the order entered in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his serial petition filed
under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
9546. On June 1, 1997, fifteen-year-old Appellant participated in a robbery,
which resulted in the victim’s death. A jury convicted Appellant of second-
degree murder and related offenses. On April 12, 1999, the court sentenced
Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence on August 22, 2000, and our Supreme
Court denied allowance of appeal on March 30, 2001. See Commonwealth
v. Dunn, 764 A.2d 1121 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 565 Pa. 663, 775
A.2d 801 (2001). Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA petition on July 9,
___________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S17031-15
2012. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a petition to stay
pending resolution of Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 622 Pa. 543, 81
A.3d 1 (2013), which the PCRA court granted. Thereafter, the PCRA court
issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on July 18, 2014. On July
25, 2014, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The PCRA court ordered
Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and Appellant timely complied.
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.
Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008), cert.
denied, 556 U.S. 1285, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (2009). A PCRA
petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment
becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is deemed final at
the conclusion of direct review or at the expiration of time for seeking
review. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The three statutory exceptions to the
timeliness provisions in the PCRA allow for very limited circumstances under
which the late filing of a petition will be excused. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).
A petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a petition within sixty
days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(2). When asserting the newly created constitutional right exception
under section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “a petitioner must prove that there is a ‘new’
constitutional right and that the right ‘has been held’ by that court to apply
retroactively.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa.Super.
2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625, 46 A.3d 715 (2012).
-2-
J-S17031-15
Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on June 28,
2001. Appellant filed his current petition on July 9, 2012, more than eleven
years after his sentence became final; thus, the petition is patently untimely.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant attempts to invoke Section
9545(b)(1)(iii), contending his sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to
Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).
Nevertheless, our Supreme Court has ruled Miller does not apply
retroactively to sentences which became final before the filing date of Miller
(June 25, 2012), see Cunningham, supra, and the U.S. Supreme Court
has denied certiorari in Cunningham. See Cunningham v.
Pennsylvania, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2724, 189 L.Ed.2d 763 (2014).
Thus, the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/18/2015
-3-
Com. v. Dunn, A.
Combined Opinion