J-S31041-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AARON WHEELER :
:
Appellant : No. 338 EDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 17, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0117782-1992
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 11, 2023
Aaron Wheeler appeals pro se from the order denying his Post Conviction
Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Wheeler argues
that the court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely. We affirm.
A jury found Wheeler guilty of second-degree murder and other related
crimes in 1993. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. We
affirmed the judgment of sentence, and in 1995, our Supreme Court denied
Wheeler’s petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Wheeler,
645 A.2d 853 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied, Commonwealth v.
Wheeler, 656 A.2d 118 (Table) (Pa. filed March 6, 1995).
Wheeler filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on April 16, 2021, and an
amended PCRA petition on June 25, 2021. He claimed that the trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of
its intent to dismiss the petition. See Notice Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
J-S31041-23
Criminal Procedure 907, filed 12/6/22; Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). The court
explained that Wheeler’s petition was untimely and did not satisfy any time-
bar exception. See id. Wheeler filed a response to the court’s Rule 907 notice
but did not address the timeliness of his petition. See Judicial Notice Pursuant
to Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 201; Alternatively, Objection to Notice
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907, filed 12/21/22. The
court dismissed Wheeler’s PCRA petition, and this timely appeal followed.
Wheeler raises the following issue: “Whether [the] court committed
reversible error and abused discretion in dismissing PCRA/Habeas Corpus as
untimely when no case under bill number CP-51-CR-0117782-1992 has even
been filed and brought against [Wheeler] as the absence of entry in official
record shows?” Wheeler’s Br. at III (suggested answer omitted and
unnecessary capitalization removed).
“When reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition, we must determine
whether the PCRA court’s order is supported by the record and free of legal
error.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 181 A.3d 1168, 1174 (Pa.Super. 2018)
(citation omitted).
A PCRA petition must be filed within one year after the judgment of
sentence becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of
sentence “becomes 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.” Id. at § 9545(b)(3). When a petitioner files a petition beyond the
-2-
J-S31041-23
one-year deadline, the petitioner must plead and prove at least one of the
time-bar exceptions. See id. at § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). These exceptions are:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously 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.
Id. Any petition raising one of the above exceptions “shall be filed within one
year of the date the claim could have been presented.” Id. at § 9545(b)(2).
A court may not address the merits of an untimely PCRA petition unless the
petitioner has pled and proven at least one of the time-bar exceptions. See
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010).
The PCRA court properly dismissed Wheeler’s petition as untimely.
Wheeler’s judgment of sentence became final on June 5, 1995, when his time
to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
expired. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13; 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. Wheeler, therefore, had
until June 5, 1996, to file a timely PCRA petition. As such, the instant petition
filed in 2021, was facially untimely and the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to
review Wheeler’s claim unless he pleaded and proved one of the time-bar
exceptions. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Here, Wheeler did not
-3-
J-S31041-23
attempt to assert any time-bar exception in his PCRA petition. The PCRA court
therefore properly dismissed his petition as untimely.
Order affirmed. Application denied as moot.1
Date: 12/11/2023
____________________________________________
1 Wheeler filed a Motion for Special Relief, asking this Court to hold a hearing
on the authenticity of the criminal complaint. See Motion for Special Relief,
filed 8/31/23. We deny the motion as moot.
-4-