J-S20038-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
RODNEY ALIAN WILLIAMS, II :
:
Appellant : No. 1463 MDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006840-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 30, 2018
Appellant, Rodney Alian Williams, II, appeals pro se from the order
entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as
untimely his serial petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)
at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. On September 9, 2010, a jury convicted
Appellant of multiple sex offenses against minors. The court sentenced
Appellant on February 1, 2011, to an aggregate 20 to 40 years’ incarceration.
This Court affirmed on July 24, 2012. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 55
A.3d 145 (Pa.Super. 2012). Appellant sought no further direct review, so the
judgment of sentence became final on August 23, 2012. Since that time,
Appellant has filed several unsuccessful PCRA petitions; he filed his current
petition on January 24, 2017. In response to the court’s notice of intent to
dismiss, per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, Appellant filed what he called another PCRA
J-S20038-18
petition on March 3, 2017. At a PCRA hearing on August 22, 2017, the court
granted the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss as untimely Appellant’s
requests for collateral relief. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on
September 21, 2017, and a court-ordered concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), on October 20, 2017.
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.
Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa.Super. 2016). A PCRA petition
must be filed within one year of the date the underlying judgment became
final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment is “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 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 the date the claim
could first have been presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1-2).
Instantly, the judgment of sentence became final on August 23, 2012,
upon expiration of the 30 days to file a petition for allowance of appeal with
our Supreme Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
Appellant filed the current petition on January 24, 2017, which is patently
untimely by over three years. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). In it, Appellant
asserts claims of ineffective assistance of prior PCRA counsel and seeks relief
from his mandatory minimum sentences. As presented, Appellant’s ineffective
assistance of prior counsel claims do not meet an exception to the PCRA time
-2-
J-S20038-18
bar. See Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70, 77, 753 A.2d
780, 783 (2000) (stating generic allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel, even if cast in the language of a statutory exception, do not generally
establish jurisdiction over otherwise untimely PCRA petition). Likewise,
Appellant’s complaints about his mandatory minimum sentences do not satisfy
an exception to the PCRA time bar, under Alleyne v. U.S., 570 U.S. 99, 133
S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (decided June 17, 2013) or its progeny.
See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa.Super. 2014) (holding that
neither our Supreme Court nor U.S. Supreme Court has held Alleyne applies
retroactively, which is fatal to petitioner’s attempt to satisfy “new
constitutional right” exception to PCRA timeliness requirements). See also
Commonwealth v. Washington, 636 Pa. 301, 142 A.3d 810 (2016) (holding
Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review to challenge
sentences which became final before Alleyne was decided). Also, Appellant’s
current petition was not filed within the separate 60-day deadline to assert
the statutory exceptions. See Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144
(Pa.Super. 2011) (holding 60-day deadline runs from date of underlying
judicial decision). Appellant’s claims fail to satisfy the statutory exceptions to
the PCRA time bar, so his current petition remains time barred. Thus, the
PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to review the petition and properly dismissed it
as untimely. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S20038-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 05/30/18
-4-