J-S51033-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN KEHOE :
:
Appellant : No. 3063 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 9, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-0002517-1976
BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 16, 2017
Appellant, John Kehoe, appeals pro se from the September 9, 2016,
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
dismissing his serial petition filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, on the basis it was untimely filed.
After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history underlying this appeal have
been aptly set forth by the PCRA court as follows:
On December 11, 1978, [Appellant] was sentenced to
twenty-five (25) to fifty (50) years imprisonment for rape [and
related offenses]. This sentence was affirmed by [this Court] on
July 18, 1980. [Appellant] did not seek review from the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court[.]
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S51033-17
In September of 1982, [Appellant] filed his initial petition
under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, [the predecessor to the
PCRA, and] the lower court denied [the petition.] [Appellant]
appealed this ruling, but later discontinued the appeal on
February 2, 1983.
On May 3, 1983, the lower court denied [Appellant’s]
second petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. [This
Court] affirmed this [order] on January 4, 1985, with the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying [Appellant’s] petition for
allowance of appeal from the same on July 15, 1985.
On August 9, 2004, the lower court denied [Appellant’s]
[petition for DNA testing of sperm samples and hair samples
taken during the rape investigation to be compared against his
DNA. The lower court denied the petition. This Court affirmed on
May 16, 2005,] and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied
allocatur on December 13, 2005.
In August of 2008, [Appellant], acting pro se, filed
paperwork essentially requesting time credit towards his
sentence. [The lower court denied the petition under the
auspices of the PCRA, and Appellant did not appeal.]
PCRA Court Opinion, filed 12/16/16, 1-2 (emphasis omitted).
Thereafter, on or about April 20, 2011, Appellant filed the instant pro
se PCRA petition, and on August 31, 2011, the PCRA court provided
Appellant with notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing.
For reasons not apparent on the record, the PCRA court did not enter a final
order dismissing the petition until September 9, 2016. Appellant filed a
timely pro se appeal, and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements have been met.
Preliminarily, we must determine whether Appellant’s instant PCRA
petition was timely filed. See Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50
(Pa.Super. 2000). “Our standard of review of the denial of PCRA relief is
clear; we are limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are
-2-
J-S51033-17
supported by the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v.
Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quotation and
quotation marks omitted).
The most recent amendments to the PCRA, effective January 19, 1996,
provide that a PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, shall
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, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of
the 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). To invoke an exception, a
petition must allege and the petitioner must prove:
(i) the failure to raise a claim previously was the result of
interference by government officials with the
presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution
or the law of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or
law 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 Pennsylvania after
the time period provided in this section and has been
held by that court to apply retroactively.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).
-3-
J-S51033-17
“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege
and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.” Commonwealth
v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587, 947 A.2d 714, 719 (2008) (citation omitted).
In the case before us, as the PCRA court aptly found, Appellant was
sentenced on December 11, 1978, and this Court affirmed his judgment of
sentence on July 18, 1980. Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of
appeal with our Supreme Court. Accordingly, his judgment of sentence
became final on August 17, 1980, when the thirty-day time period for filing a
petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme Court expired. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 1113. Appellant had one year from that
date, or until August 17, 1981, to file a timely PCRA petition. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). However, Appellant did not file the instant PCRA
petition until April 20, 2011, and thus, it is patently untimely. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).1
This does not end our inquiry as Appellant attempts to invoke the
“new constitutional right” exception of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).2
____________________________________________
1
Where a petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final on or before the
effective date of the amendment, a special grace proviso allows first PCRA
petitions to be filed by January 16, 1997. See Commonwealth v. Alcorn,
703 A.2d 1054, 1056–57 (Pa.Super. 1997). However, this is not Appellant’s
first PCRA petition, and the instant petition was not filed by January 16,
1997. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to the proviso’s benefit.
2
To invoke the “new constitutional right” exception, the petitioner must
plead and prove that “the right asserted is a constitutional right that was
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S51033-17
Specifically, Appellant argues that he is entitled to the retroactive application
of Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin, 5 A.3d 363, 365 (Pa.Super. 2010),
Briscoe v. Virginia, 130 S.Ct. 1316 (2010) (per curiam), and Melendez-
Dias v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009).3
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 the exception asserted is Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), the 60–
day rule runs from the date of the germane decision.” Commonwealth v.
Secreti, 134 A.3d 77, 80 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
Here, this Court filed its decision in Barton-Martin on September 8,
2010. The United States Supreme Court filed its decision in Briscoe on
January 25, 2010, and its decision in Melendez-Dias on June 25, 2009.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
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.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
3
In Melendez-Dias, the United States Supreme Court held that lab reports
admitted to establish a defendant’s guilt constitute testimonial statements
subject to the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and thus, such
reports are inadmissible unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
examine the lab analyst at trial. In Briscoe, the United States Supreme
Court applied Melendez-Dias retroactively on direct appeal. In Barton-
Martin, this Court examined Melendez-Dias and Briscoe on direct appeal
of an appellant’s judgment of sentence. This Court held that admission of
the appellant’s blood-alcohol content test result, without a showing that the
laboratory technician who actually performed the testing was unavailable
and that the appellant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine her, violated
the appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in the prosecution
for driving under the influence.
-5-
J-S51033-17
However, Appellant did not file the instant PCRA petition until April 20, 2011.
Accordingly, Appellant has not asserted his timeliness exception with sixty
days of the date the claim could have been presented. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(2).
For all of the aforementioned reasons, we agree with the PCRA court
that Appellant’s instant PCRA petition is untimely and Appellant has not
established any of the timeliness exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. Thus, we
affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of the petition.
Affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/16/2017
-6-