J-S90044-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
HYQUAWNN BAKEERE WALLACE
Appellant No. 1921 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 17, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0002178-2005
BEFORE: OTT, J., SOLANO, J. AND JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2016
HyQuawnn Bakerree Wallace (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the
order entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which
denied his third petition filed for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
On February 6, 2006, a jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault,
burglary, three counts of conspiracy, nine counts of simple assault, and nine
counts of robbery. On March 6, 2006, the court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 25½ to 51 years’ incarceration. On January 5, 2007, this
____________________________________________
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S90044-16
Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. Appellant did not file a
petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court.
On February 19, 2010, Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition.
The PCRA court appointed counsel and subsequently dismissed his petition
on July 20, 2010. This Court affirmed the dismissal order on July 22, 2011.
On December 28, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Appellant’s
petition for allowance of appeal. On March 26, 2012, Appellant filed another
PCRA petition, which the PCRA court denied on May 2, 2012. On May 24,
2012, Appellant appealed the PCRA order, and this Court dismissed the
appeal on December 24, 2012 because Appellant failed to file a brief.
On January 25, 2016, Appellant filed the present PCRA petition, his
third. On April 26, 2016, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to
dismiss the petition without a hearing. On May 9, 2016, Appellant filed a
response to the court’s notice, and the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s
petition on May 17, 2016. On June 6, 2016, Appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WAS [APPELLANT’S] 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
VIOLATED DUE TO A LAYERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL ARISING FROM ONE’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW
P.A.R.A.P. 2119(F)?
SINCE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS A RIGHT GRANTED BY
THE 6TH AMENDMENT[, HAVE] THE [APPELLANT’S]
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEEN VIOLATED DUE TO A
LAYERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
ARISING OUT OF THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS?
-2-
J-S90044-16
IS 42 P.A.C.S.A. § 9545 UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
PREVENTS THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND ANY
COURT THEREAFTER, JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND TREAT
THE VIOLATIONS TO [APPELLANT’S] CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must determine
whether his PCRA petition was timely. The timeliness of a PCRA petition
implicates the jurisdiction of both this Court and the PCRA court.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44, 52 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal
denied, 50 A.3d 121 (Pa.2012). “Pennsylvania law makes clear that no
court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition.” Id. To “accord
finality to the collateral review process[,]” the PCRA “confers no authority
upon [appellate courts] to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA
timebar[.]” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa.2011). With
respect to jurisdiction under the PCRA, this Court has further explained:
The most recent amendments to the PCRA...provide a
PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition,
shall be filed within one year of the date the underlying
judgment becomes final. A judgment is deemed final at
the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary
review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of
time for seeking the review.
Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Pa.Super.2010)
(citations and quotations omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 1210 (Pa.2011);
see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). This Court may review a PCRA petition filed
-3-
J-S90044-16
more than one year after the judgment of sentence becomes final only if the
claim falls within one of the following three statutory exceptions, which the
petitioner must plead and prove:
(i) the failure to raise the claim 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). These “exceptions to the time bar must be pled in
the PCRA petition, and may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa.Super.2007). Further,
if a petition pleads one of these exceptions, the petition will not be
considered unless it is “filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have
been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on February 5,
2007, when his time period for filing a petition for allowance of appeal with
our Supreme Court expired. Thus, Appellant had until February 5, 2008 to
file a timely PCRA petition. The present petition, filed January 25, 2016, is
-4-
J-S90044-16
patently untimely. Appellant has failed to plead and prove any of the
enumerated exceptions to the PCRA time bar.2
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/8/2016
____________________________________________
2
Appellant claims that the PCRA and its time limitations are unconstitutional.
To qualify for the constitutional right exception to the PCRA time bar,
Appellant must plead and prove that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or
the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized a constitutional right
and has held that right to apply retroactively. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Appellant fails to plead and prove any such right.
-5-