The opinion
J-S31002-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN GORDINE :
:
Appellant : No. 692 EDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 26, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005860-2007
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2025
Sean Gordine appeals pro se from the order entered on February 26,
2025, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”)1 as untimely. After careful review, we affirm.
We obtained the following factual history from the Commonwealth’s
brief.2
On October 3, 2006, shortly after 9:00 P.M. on the 1500 block of
Rosalie Street in Philadelphia, the victims[] (Michael Thierry, Gary
Roemhild, Kevin Roemhild, and Keith Pena) were sitting on the
steps in front of Gary Roemhild’s home when the four
codefendants[] ([Gordine], Isaiah Ransome, Jerry Ransome, and
Eric Gales), all of whom were carrying guns, approached the
victims on foot and announced a robbery. Gary Roemhild turned to
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2 The trial transcripts were not included in the certified record. Based upon
Gordine’s admission to certain facts, as described in more detail below, the
lack of transcripts does not hinder our review.
J-S31002-25
run into his house, but Isaiah Ransome grabbed him by the
shoulder, put a .357 caliber pistol to his head, and took $50 from
his back pocket. [Gordine], who was armed with a black .25 caliber
handgun, then took a wallet and $20 from Pena while Gales, who
was armed with a .22 caliber rifle, took a wallet from Kevin
Roemhild.
Jerry Ransome, who was armed with a chrome revolver,
approached Michael Theirry to take his money as well. Thierry,
however, dropped his keys and cell phone on the ground and ran
away. When Isaiah Ransome saw that Theirry was trying to escape,
he jumped down from the steps, chased while aiming his gun in
Thierry’s direction, and began shooting. [Gordine] and the other
two co-defendants then joined him in chasing and shooting at
Thierry.
Thierry was hit with two shots: one to the back of the head, and
another to the penis. Once he fell, the robbers returned their
attention to the three remaining robbery victims, who were running
in the opposite direction of Thierry, and began shooting at them
while Jerry Ransome rifled through the pockets of the fallen
Thierry.
Police and rescue workers arrived within minutes. They found
Thierry lying in the street and transported him to Frankford-
Torresdale Hospital, where he died two days later as a result of the
gunshot wound to his head. Five weeks after the murder, during
the early morning hours of November 12, 2006, Philadelphia police
responded to another shooting in the same neighborhood. One of
the responding officers stopped [Gordine] for investigation. No
weapon was found on his person, but the black .25 caliber handgun
that he used in the robbery and murder [of Thierry] was found
beneath a nearby car.
[Gordine] also made three separate admissions of guilt during the
weeks following the murder: He called his mother and admitted
guilt in the presence of police, admitted guilt to his friend Darryl
Williams, and admitted guilt to the codefendant Ransome’s
brother, Jamil Ransome, about his role in the crime.
Appellee’s Brief, at 2-4 (record citations omitted).
-2-
J-S31002-25
Gordine proceeded to trial. In June of 2008, the jury deadlocked on all
charges except first-degree murder. The jury found Gordine not guilty of first-
degree murder. A second jury trial was scheduled for the remaining charges.
Ultimately, the second trial was held in December of 2012 and the jury found
Gordine guilty of second-degree murder, three counts of robbery, three counts
of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, possessing instruments of crime,
firearms not to be carried without a license, and carrying firearms on public
streets or public property in Philadelphia.3
The court sentenced Gordine to an aggregate 40 years to life
imprisonment, as he was 15 years old at the time he committed the crimes.
Gordine appealed and this Court affirmed on December 17, 2014. Our
Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on July 8, 2015. Gordine filed his
first, timely PCRA on April 7, 2016. After it was dismissed, this Court affirmed
on January 29, 2019.
Gordine filed the instant, untimely, PCRA petition on July 19, 2022.4
Gordine, without court permission, filed several supplemental and amended
____________________________________________
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a), 2702(a), 903(a), 907(a), 6106(a), and
6108, respectively.
4 A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the judgment of
sentence becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545. Gordine’s judgment of
sentence became final on March 17, 2015, 90 days after our Supreme Court
denied his petition for allowance of appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3)
(stating that a judgment of sentence “becomes final at the conclusion of direct
review … or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.”); Sup. Ct. R. 13
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S31002-25
petitions. The court issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss on January
23, 2025. Gordine responded, and the PCRA court dismissed his PCRA petition
on February 26, 2025. Gordine timely appealed. The PCRA court did not order
Gordine to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The PCRA
court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing the timeliness of the petition.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Gordine raises four questions for our review:
1. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt committed an error of law and
abused its discretion in dismissing [Gordine’s] PCRA petition as
untimely where [the] newly discovered evidence claim was
brought within one year of the date the claim could have been
presented[?]
2. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt committed an error of law and
abused its discretion in dismissing [the] petition based upon
claims and[/]or facts not asserted in the petition where [Gordine]
did not advance as a claim, or newly discovered facts, that he (1)
fired a gun in self-defense, or that (2) [Gordine] believed he was
in imminent threat which required him to fire a gun in self-
defense[?]
3. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt committed an error of law and
abused its discretion in dismissing [the] petition without
appointing counsel and conducting an evidentiary hearing where
[the] witness’ unsworn declaration raises issues of material fact[?]
4. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt committed an error of law and
abused its discretion in dismissing [the] petition where [the]
witness’ testimony was (1) unavailable at the time of trial[,] (2)
exculpatory[,] and (3) would have affected the outcome of trial[?]
Appellant’s Brief, at 9 (suggested answers omitted).
____________________________________________
(stating that a petition for writ of certiorari is to be filed within 90 days after
the entry of the order denying discretionary review).
-4-
J-S31002-25
Our scope and standard of review are well-settled:
Our review of a PCRA court’s decision is limited to examining
whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the
record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal
error. Our scope of review is limited to the PCRA court’s findings
and evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as the prevailing party.
Commonwealth v. Graves, 197 A.3d 1182, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(citations omitted).
We cannot consider the merits of Gordine’s PCRA petition if the petition
was not timely filed, as the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional
matter. See id. A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the judgment
of sentence becoming final, unless the petitioner alleges and proves a
timeliness exception. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “If the petition is
determined to be untimely, and no exception has been pled and proven, the
petition must be dismissed without a hearing because Pennsylvania courts are
without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.” See
Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citation omitted).
Gordine concedes the instant PCRA petition is untimely, but alleges he
met the newly discovered fact exception. See Appellant’s Brief, at 17. We
therefore begin by discussing the newly discovered fact timeliness exception
found at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
Exception (b)(1)(ii) requires petitioner to allege and prove that
there were facts unknown to him and that he could not have
ascertained those facts by the exercise of due diligence. The focus
-5-
J-S31002-25
of the exception is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly
discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.
Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (internal
quotation marks, emphases, and citations omitted).
“We emphasize that it is the petitioner who bears the burden to allege
and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.” Id. at 719 (citation
omitted). “A petitioner fails to satisfy the [timeliness exception] of Section
9545(b) if he or she fails to explain why, with the exercise of due diligence,
the claim could not have been filed earlier.” Id. at 720 (citation omitted). “Due
diligence demands that the petitioner take reasonable steps to protect his own
interests. A petitioner must explain why he could not have learned the new
fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence. This rule is strictly enforced.”
Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1216 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)
(citation omitted).
Gordine claims the new fact is the statement of an alleged eyewitness,
Ra’Sheen Brown, who claims to have seen one of the other victims shoot
Thierry in the groin. See Appellant’s Brief, at 14; PCRA Petition, 7/19/22, at
Attachment A. Gordine admits that he “always knew” that neither he nor his
co-defendants robbed the victims but claims he did not know that Thierry was
shot by another victim versus one of his co-defendants. Appellant’s Brief, at
14. We fail to see how this is a new fact and not an alleged new source for a
previously known fact.
-6-
J-S31002-25
Notably, the affidavit attached to Gordine’s PCRA petition states that
victim Thierry was sitting next to Gordine when the victim jumped up to run
away and another victim shot him in the groin. See PCRA Petition, 7/19/22,
at Attachment A (stating “Mike [Theirry] was sitting between Shizz [AKA
Gordine] and E [AKA codefendant Gales]. … When Mike jumped up and ran
you could tell it startled Gary [Roemhild] because he flinched and turned and
shot Mike in his [groin] area.”). As the Commonwealth cogently asserts:
Despite merely claiming he did not know, [Gordine] does not
explain why—if Brown’s statement is true—[Gordine] himself
could not see that Gary Roemhild shot Thierry, especially
considering he was standing closer to the victims than Brown
allegedly was. Presumably, [Gordine], or at least one of his three
codefendants, would have seen or heard Thierry jumping up and
dropping what he had in his hands, Gary Roemhild’s gun firing,
and Thierry crying out in pain before codefendant Eric Gales
started shooting.
Appellee’s Brief, at 11.
We agree with the Commonwealth. Gordine failed to explain why he did
not see the person sitting next to him jump up and get shot. Furthermore, as
Gordine readily admits, he knew at the time of the incident who was robbing
whom but did not raise this defense at trial. See Appellant’s Brief, at 14. As
Gordine admits he was present at the scene, even assuming Brown’s
statement were true, this is a new source for previously known facts. Finally,
we note Gordine raised a similar claim in his first, timely, pro se PCRA petition,
thereby confirming this is not a new fact but merely a new conduit for
previously known facts. See PCRA Petition, 4/7/16, at 5-6 (addressing
-7-
J-S31002-25
Gordine’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an
eyewitness who allegedly saw a white male putting a gun in his waist band
after the victim was shot).
We therefore affirm the order of the PCRA court that found Gordine did
not meet the timeliness exception.
Order affirmed.
Date: 10/15/2025
-8-