J-S13003-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
v. :
:
:
KALULE BUTTO COCHRAN :
:
Appellant : No. 1753 WDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000785-2005,
CP-02-CR-0011372-2005
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2018
Appellant, Kalule Butto Cochran, appeals from the order entered in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as untimely his
third petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On September 11, 2006, the trial court convicted
Appellant of third-degree murder and conspiracy. The court sentenced
Appellant on December 4, 2006, to 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment for murder,
and imposed no further penalty for conspiracy. On March 25, 2008, this Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied allowance
of appeal on October 16, 2008. See Commonwealth v. Cochran, 953 A.2d
596 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 786, 959 A.2d 927 (2008).
On June 2, 2010, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition pro se. The court
appointed counsel, who filed a petition to withdraw and Turner/Finley “no-
J-S13003-18
merit” letter.1 The court granted counsel’s petition, issued appropriate notice
per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on February 21, 2012, and denied relief on March 26,
2012. This Court affirmed on July 3, 2013. See Commonwealth v.
Cochran, 82 A.3d 1055 (Pa.Super. 2013). Appellant filed his second PCRA
petition pro se on September 16, 2014. The court issued Rule 907 notice on
October 7, 2014, and denied relief on October 28, 2014. Appellant did not
appeal that decision.
On September 15, 2016, Appellant filed the current pro se PCRA
petition. The court issued Rule 907 notice that day. Appellant did not
respond. By order dated October 12, 2016, and filed October 19, 2016, the
court denied relief. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on
November 15, 2016. On November 17, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to
file a concise statement per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant did not comply.
Preliminarily, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional
requisite. Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa.Super. 2016). A
PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within
one year of the date the underlying judgment of sentence becomes final. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence 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
____________________________________________
1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
-2-
J-S13003-18
expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The
statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow for very limited circumstances
to excuse the late filing of a petition; a petitioner asserting an exception must
file a petition within 60 days of when the claim could have first been presented.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2).
Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on January 14,
2009, upon expiration of the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court. See U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13. Appellant filed the current
PCRA petition on September 15, 2016, which is patently untimely. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Appellant mentioned the “governmental
interference” exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(i), claiming trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to investigate fully the Commonwealth witnesses, and
the prosecutor failed to disclose a plea deal between the Commonwealth and
a key witness. Appellant vaguely alleged he discovered the underlying claims
on August 26, 2016, from a fellow inmate. Appellant referred to an exhibit
purportedly containing the inmate’s affidavit, but no affidavit is in the certified
record. Thus, Appellant failed to satisfy the 60-day rule; and his current
petition remains time barred.2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
2 In any event, Appellant did not comply with the court’s Rule 1925(b) order,
so he waived his claims on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585
Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005) (holding issues not raised in Rule 1925(b)
statement are waived on appeal).
-3-
J-S13003-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/11/2018
-4-