Opinion

Com. v. Saunder, S.

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: Nov 25, 2025
Status: Unpublished
On the bench: Nichols
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 37.1%

‘The (2013)(“ 'Te court court cannot cannot ignore ignore aa petition's petition’s untimeliness untimeliness and and reach the merits reach the merits of of the the petition.’ petition.'"”

How later courts described this case

‘The (2013)(“ 'Te court court cannot cannot ignore ignore aa petition's petition’s untimeliness untimeliness and and reach the merits reach the merits of of the the petition.’ petition.'"”
stating that “no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition” (citation omitted)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

J-S33046-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

SHAWN SAUNDERS :

Appellant : No. 2012 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 28, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-23-CR-0001537-2000

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2025

Appellant Shawn Saunders appeals from the order dismissing his

seventh Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that the

PCRA court erred in concluding that Appellant failed to satisfy an exception to

the PCRA’s one-year time bar. After review, we affirm on the basis of the

PCRA court’s opinion.

A prior panel of this Court briefly summarized the relevant facts and

procedural history of this matter as follows:

On October 18, 1999, Appellant, Omar Davis, and David

Burroughs traveled together to Ninth and Lincoln Streets in

Chester so that Davis could purchase marijuana. On the way,

Appellant, who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that

he intended to rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the

controlled substance. When they arrived at their destination,

Appellant put on a ski cap and covered his face. Appellant, Davis,

and Burroughs encountered Cleven Pender and Shammer

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

J-S33046-25

Thomas. Davis rifled through Thomas’ pockets, and Appellant told

Pender to give him money. When Pender started to back away,

Appellant shot Pender in the chest, killing him. Appellant was

twenty-two years old when he murdered Pender.

Appellant was convicted [of second-degree murder, robbery,

conspiracy, and firearms not to be carried without a license 2] on

March 9, 2001, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On

August 27, 2002, we affirmed, Commonwealth v. Saunders,

[2452 EDA 2001,] 809 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. [filed Aug. 27,] 2002)

(unpublished memorandum), and our Supreme Court denied

allowance of appeal on December 2, 2003. Commonwealth v.

Saunders, [731 MAL 2002,] 839 A.2d 352 (Pa. 2003).

Commonwealth v. Saunders, 2818 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1103040, at *1

(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.). Appellant was denied

relief on his six previous PCRA petitions. See id. at *1-2; see also

Commonwealth v. Saunders, 3132 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1103041, at *2

(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.).

Appellant filed his seventh PCRA petition pro se on April 23, 2021. The

PCRA court appointed counsel, and Appellant subsequently filed an amended

and counseled seventh PCRA petition on August 26, 2022. See Am. PCRA

Pet., 8/26/22. In the petition, Appellant argued that the Commonwealth failed

to provide Appellant’s trial counsel with a document, which Appellant alleged

was a police report containing a witness statement exonerating Appellant, and

claimed that he satisfied the governmental interference or newly discovered

fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar. See id. at 3-13.

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(b), 3701, 903, and 6106, respectively.

-2-

J-S33046-25

The PCRA court scheduled a hearing “limited to addressing . . . whether

[Appellant] has met the proof requirements under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)

and/or (ii) of the Post Conviction Relief Act necessary to the court’s

jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the collateral pleading’s merits.” PCRA

Ct. Order, 1/6/23 (some formatting altered and endnotes omitted).

The PCRA court held hearings on February 24, 2023 and November 20,

2023. In an order filed on June 28, 2024, the PCRA court dismissed

Appellant’s seventh PCRA petition. Appellant filed a timely appeal, and both

the PCRA court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue:

Whether the Honorable PCRA court erred as a matter of law and

abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to

address the merits of [Appellant’s] amended petition for relief

under the Post Conviction Relief Act, and dismissing the petition,

where the PCRA court admitted into evidence, as having been

properly authenticated, a police report embodying an interview

with an individual who provided exculpatory information, the

report was not provided to the defense prior to trial, and

[Appellant] pled and proved the time limit exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S.

Section 954[5(]b)(1)(i), (ii).

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).

In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review

is well settled:

[O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is

limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is

supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal

error. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when

supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we

apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal

conclusions.

-3-

J-S33046-25

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations omitted and formatting altered).

The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a threshold jurisdictional question.

See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014); see

also Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(stating that “no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition”

(citation omitted)). “A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent one,

must be filed within one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence

became final, unless he pleads and proves one of the three exceptions outlined

in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).” Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa.

2012) (citation and footnote omitted). A judgment of sentence becomes final

at the conclusion of direct review, or at the expiration of time for seeking such

review. See id. at 17.

Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a

judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of

the following three statutory exceptions:

(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.

-4-

J-S33046-25

42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner asserting one of these exceptions

must file a petition within one year of the date the claim could have first been

presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).3 It is the petitioner’s “burden to

allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.”

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1094 (Pa. 2010) (citations

omitted and some formatting altered). If a PCRA petition is untimely, and

none of the timeliness exceptions are met, courts do not have jurisdiction to

address the substance of the underlying claims. Commonwealth v. Cox,

146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant

law, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant’s seventh PCRA petition was

untimely and that he failed to satisfy an exception to the PCRA’s one-year

time bar. The PCRA court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims and

correctly concluded that he was not entitled to relief. See PCRA Ct. Op.,

1/31/25, at 1-31. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s

opinion.4 See id.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

3 On October 24, 2018, the General Assembly amended Section 9545(b)(2)

and extended the time for filing a petition from sixty days to one year from

the date the claim could have been presented. See 2018 Pa.Legis.Serv.Act

2018-146 (S.B. 915), effective December 24, 2018. The amendment applies

only to claims arising one year before the effective date of this section,

December 24, 2017, or thereafter.

4 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court’s opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

-5-

J-S33046-25

Date: 11/25/2025

-6-

Circulated 10/29/2025 11.09 AM

Circulated 1 11:09@1-3f-2025]

0/29/2025~ae

[6_~inion AM

6_0pInibn Dated 01-31-2025

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASCRIMINAL

CRIMINAL .

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1537-00

cr ·' +.

SHAWN SAUNDERS

SHAWNSAUNDERS Superior Court No. 2012 EDA 2b24 r

Superior Court No. 2012

Michael J. Flowers, Esquire - Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth;_

EDA^24

· tr

d:..-11

;'-:

3 -zja

.g·pet

-.r

a.5

William P. Wismer, Esquire -- Attorney for Shawn Saunders g-

-.+€2

J.� :;..J

rc\

. I

r<»

OPINION

Kelly, J. J.

Kelly, ·Date: January 31, 2025

Date: January 31, 2025

I. Introduction

Shawn Saunders (hereafter referred to as "the Defendant or "Defendant Saunders") s

Sha™ Saunders (hereafter referred to as “fa Defendant” or “Defendant Saunders”) hL

timely

faety filedfiled a counseled notice of appeal' from this court's order dated June 28, 2024, dismissipg

a counsded noaoe of

his lawyer's amended Post Conviction Relief Act' petition4 following evidentiary hearings.5

his amended Post Conviction Relief Act? petition’ following evidential hearings .=

For those reasons detailed infra, after this court considered the whole of the PC ,

For those reasons detailed infra, after this court considered fa whole of fa Pell i

evidentiary presentation and the parties respective arguments, as well as conducted an independent

evidentiary presentation and fa parties’ tespective arguments, as well as conducted an indoJu

and thorough review of the salient direct and collateral case records, in accord with the relevant Ilw

^d borough review of the salient direct and collateral case records, in accord with the relevant ikjv

as applied to the credible, salient evidence, the Defendant simply did not sustain his threshold burden

as applied to the credible, salient evidence, fa Defendant simply did not sustain his threshold burin

of establishing the courts jurisdictional authority necessary to adjudicating his PCRA claims alle

of establishing fa courts jurisdictional authority necessaty to adjudicating his PCRA claims aided

6 Accordingly, Defendant Saunders' counseled, collateral pleading was dismissed. Se 1

merits. 6 Accordingly,

merits. Defendant Saunders’

I counseled, collateral pleading was dismissed. See ।

Order

Orderdated

datedJune

June28,

28,2024.

2024.See

Seealso

alsoDefendant’s

Defendant'sAmended

AmendedPCRA

PCRAPetition

Petitiondocketed

docketedAugust

August26,

26,,

2022.

2022. '

Upon

Uponthe

thefiling

filingofofthe

theDefendant’s

Defendant'stimely

timelyappeal

appealnotice,

notice,the

thecourt

courtdirected

directedDefendant

Defend ।

Saunders'attorney

Saunders’ attorney.totolodge aPa.R.A.P.1925(b)

lodgeaPa.R.A.P. concisestatement

1925(b)concise statementofoferrors

errorscomplained

complainedofofononappeg

appedfl

andforwarded

and forwardedthat

thatsame

samedayday(July

(July29,29,2024)

2024)totothe

theDelaware

DelawareCounty

CountyJudicial

JudicialSupport Officefcfdr|r

SupportOffice

proceeding and of-record lodging its

proceeding and of-record lodging its July 29, 2024, order. See Order dated July 29, 2024; and

July29, 2024, order. See Order dated July 29, 2024, and AOP ( AOP'

CaseDocket.

Case Docket. Inexplicably thecourt’s

Inexplicablythe court's 1925(b) orderdated

1925(b)order datedJuly

July29,

29,2024,

2024,just

justfour

four(4)

(4)days

days

subsequenttotothe

subsequent theDefendant’s

Defendant'snotice

noticeofofappeal beingfiled,

appealbeing filed,was

wasnot

notdocketed

docketedby

bythe

theDelawaie

Delaw

County Office

County Office ofofJudicial

Judicial Support until September

Supportuntil September 9,9, 2024.

2024. See AOPC docket.

See AOPC docket. Hence,

Hence, ti e e

DefendantSaunders’

Defendant Saunders'1925(b)

1925(b)statement

statementlodged

lodgedon

onOctober

October9,9,2024,

2024,was

wasdone

donesosoininatimely

a timelymanner!

manner

Seegenerally

See Pa.R.Crim.P.114(B)(1)(3).

generallyPa.R.Crim.P. 114(3)1)(3).

TheDefendant

The Defendantcouches

couchesthe

theissue

issueraised

raisedon

onappeal

appealininthe

thefollowing

followingmanner:

manner:

Whetherthe

Whether theHonorable

HonorablePCRA PCRACourt erred asas aamatter

Court erred matter ofoflaw

lawandand ,

abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to

abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to address address ।

the merits

the merits of

ofDefendant’s

Defendant's Amended

Amended Petition

Petition forfor Relief

Reliefunder

under thethe ,

PCRA, and dismissing the Petition, where the PCRA

PCRA, and dismissing the Petition, where the PCRA court admitted court admitted ;

intoevidence,

into evidence,asashaving

havingbeenbeenproperly authenticated,aapolice

properlyauthenticated, policereport

report J

embodying an

embodying an interview

interview withwith an an individual

individual who who provided

provided . ।

exculpatory information, the report was not provided to

exculpatory information, the report was not provided to the defense the defense ।

prior to trial, and Defendant pied and proved

prior to trial, and Defendant pled and proved the time limit the time limit I

exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(i),(ii).

exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(i),(ii). !

1925(b) Statement

1925(b) Statement dated

dated October

October 9,

9,2024. See also

2024. See AOPC Docket.

also AOPC Docket. i

Upon an

Upon an examination

examination of

ofthe

the relevant

relevant and

and credible record, as

credible record, as well

well as

as given the material

given the material ,

standard of

standard of such

such appellate

appellate review,

review, the

the court’s

court's dismissal

dismissal order should be

.order77 should be affirmed.

affirmed.

ILII.Case

CaseHistory

History (

The

Therelevant

relevantfactual

factualsummary

summaryand

andprocedural

proceduralhistory

historyasaselicited

elicitedatatthe

theDefendant’s

Defendant'strial

trialand

an ।

subsequent

subsequentpost-conviction

post-convictionpursuits

pursuitsisistaken

takenfrom

fromthe

theSuperior

SuperiorCourt’s

Court'smemorandum

memorandumopinion

opinioncited

cite

infra

infraand

andquoted

quotedininthe

thesubsequently

subsequentlyissued

issuedfederal

federalhabeas

habeasreport

reportand

andrecommendation

recommendationinfra

infraad

follows:

follows: :

, ~David 1

OnOn October

October 18, 18, 1999,

1999, [Petitioner],

[Petitioner], OmarOmar Davis,

Davis, and and David ।

Burroughs

Burroughstraveled

traveledtogether

togethertotoNinth

Ninthand andLincoln

LincolnStreets

StreetsininChester

Chester ।

sosothat

thatDavis

Daviscould

couldpurchase

purchasemarijuana.

marijuana.On Onthe

theway,

way,[Petitioner],

[Petitioner], i

who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that he intended

who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that he intendedtoto 1

rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the controlled

rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the controlled !

substance.

substance.When Whentheytheyarrived

arrivedatatheir

theirdestination,

destination,[Petitioner]

[Petitioner]putputonon J

a ski cap and covered his face. [Petitioner], Davis, and Burroughs

a ski cap and covered his face. [Petitioner], Davis, and Burroughs ।

encountered

encountered elevenCleven Pender

Pender andand Shammer

Shammer Thomas.

Thomas. Davis

Davis rifled

rifled i

through Thomas’ pockets, and [Petitioner]

through Thomas' pockets, and [Petitioner]told Pender to give him

told Pender to give him ।

money.

money.When WhenPender

Penderstarted

startedtotoback

backaway,

away,[Petitioner]

[Petitioner]shot

shotPender

Pender i

in the chest, killing him. [Petitioner] was twenty-two years old when

in the chest, killing him. [Petitioner] was twenty-two years old when i

he murdered

he murdered Pender. Pender. 1

Commonwealth

Commonwealthv.• Saunders,

Saunders,No.

No.2818

2818EDA

EDA2016,

2016, [168

[168A.3d

A.3d346

346 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2017)(Table)], 20/7

2017)Table)],2017

WL 1103040 and 1103041

1103040and 1103041 atat*1 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super.March

March24,

24,2017).

2017). I Il

Defendant

Defendant Saunders

Saunders proceeded

proceeded toto trial

trial by

byjury

jury and

and was

was convicted

convicted on

on March

March 9,9, 2001,

2001, if t

second degree

second degreemurder, 8robbery,

murder,' robbery,' 9 conspiracy

conspiracytoto commit

commitrobbers,

robbers,' andpossession

10 and possessionofofananunlicens

unlicensbd;d

.. iI

firearm.11ll Id.

firearm. Id On

OnApril

April 9,9, 2001,

2001, he

hewas sentenced to

was sentenced to life

life imprisonment.

imprisonment.' 12 Id.

Id. The

The Superior

Superior Court

Co I.ft

affirmed

affirmed on

on August

August 27,

27, 2002,

2002, [809

[809 A.2d

A.2d 964

964 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2002)(Table)]

2002)(Table)] and

and on

on December

December 2,2, 20C 3,I

2003,

the P

the ennsylvania Supreme

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Court denied

denied allowance

allowance of. appeal. [576

of, appeal. [576 Pa.

Pa. 712,

712, 839

839 A.2d

A.2d 352 3 2.

Id.

(2003)(Table)] Id.

(2003)(Table)] !

The

The Defendant

Defendant then

then began

began aa lengthy

lengthy engagement

engagement with

with the

the collateral,

collateral, post-convictio'n

post-convic

process,

process, filing

filing to date

date aa total

total of

of seven

seven (7)

(7) PCRA

PCRA petitions.

petitions. His

His collateral

collateral activity

activity was

was summarised

summarized

by the

the Superior

Superior Court

Court in

in its

its opinion

opinion affirming

affirming the

the denial of his

denial of sixth (6)

his sixth th) PCRA

PCRA petition

petition as follows:

as follow^:

[Petitioner]

[Petitioner] filed

filed aa timely

timely PCRA

PCRA petition

petition on

on February

February 7,

7, 2005,

2005, and

and

counsel was appointed. Counsel was allowed to withdraw, and relief

was

was denied.

denied. Appellant

Appellant diddid not

not appeal.

appeal. On

On August

August 14,

14, 2009,

2009,

Appellant

Appellant filed

filed aa second

second PCRA

PCRA petition,

petition, which

which was

was dismissed

dismissed asas

untimely.

untimely. OnOn appeal,

appeal, we

we affirmed.

affirmed. Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.• Saunders,

Saunders, 15 15

A.3d

A.3d 538

538 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2010)

2010) (unpublished

(unpublishedmemorandum),

memorandum), 3241

3241 EDA

EDA

2009].

[Petitioner]

[Petitioner] filed

filed aa third

third PCRA

PCRA petition

petition on

on March

March 15,15, 2012,

2012, claiming

claiming

that

that he

he was

was entitled

entitl to to reliefunder

relief underMiller

Millerv.». Alabama,

Alabama, 132 132 S.Ct.

S.Ct. 2455

2455

(2012),

(2012), wherein

wherein the the United

United States

States Supreme

Supreme Court

Court held

held that

that itit was

was

unconstitutional,

unconstitutional, under

underthethe Eighth

Eighth Amendment’s

Amendment's prohibition

prohibition against

against

cruel

cruel and

and unusual

unusual punishment,

punishment, to to sentence

sentence aa juvenile

juvenile homicide

homicide

offender

offender toto aa mandatory

mandatory term term ofof life

life imprisonment

imprisonment without

without parole.

parole.

Relief

Relief was

was denied,

denied, andand we we affirmed.

affirmed. Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.». Saunders,

Saunders,

102

102 A.3dA.3d 519 519 (Pa. (Pa. Super.

Super. 2014)[Table](unpublished

2014)[Table](unpublished

memorandum)

memorandum)[2014 WL WL 10965060

10965060 (text),

(text), 1476

1476 EDA

EDA 2013].

2013]. InIn this

this

third Saunders decision, we concluded that [Petitioner’s]judgment

third Saunders decision, we concluded that [Petitioner's] judgment

ofsentence

sentence became

becamefinalfinal on on March

March 1, 1, 2004,

2004, ninety

ninety days

days after

after our

our

Supreme

Supreme Court

Court denied

deniedreview,

review, andand that

thatAppellant

Appellant had had until

untilMarch

March

1, 2005,

2005, to to present

present aa timely

timely PCRA

PCRA petition.

petition. WeWe observed

observed that that

Appellant’s

Appellant's petition

petition was

was notnot timely.

timely. We We also

also held

held that

that the

the Miller

Miller

decision

decision did

did not

not apply

apply to to him

him because

because he he was

was anan adult

adult when

when he he

committed

committed the the murder

murder in in question.

question. See

See Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.• Cintora,

Cintora,

69 A.3d

A.3d 759

759 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2013)

2013) {Miller

(Miller does

does not

not apply

apply toto homicide

homicide

offenders who are eighteen years of age or older when they

committed

committed the the murder).

murder).

2 Next,

Next, [Petitioner]

[Petitioner] filed

filed aa motion

motion arguing

arguing that

that the

the court

court had

had no

authority to impose its sentence and seeking facts regarding its

decision.

decision. The

The motion

motion was

was treated

treated as

as aa fourth

fourth PCRA

PCRA petition

petition and

and

denied

denied as

as untimely.

untimely. We

We once

once again

again affirmed

affirmed the

the denial

denial of

of relief,

relief,

agreeing

agreeing that

that the

the motion

motion waswas anan untimely

untimely PCRA

PCRA petition.

petition.

Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Saunders,

Saunders, 122122 A.3d

A.3d 1126

1126 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2015)

2015)

[(Table)](unpublished memorandum), [2015 WL 7078875] (text),

3383

3383 EDA

EDA 2014].

2014].

On April

April 11,

11, 2016,

2016, [Petitioner]

[Petitioner] filed hishis fifth

fifth PCRA

PCRA petition.

petition. He

once again invoked the

once. again invoked the Miller decision. On August 15, 2016, an

decision. On August 15, 2016, an

order

order was

was issued

issued denying

denying the

the fifth

fifth petition.

petition. The

The Court

Court held

held that

that

[Petitioner]

[Petitioner] was

was not

not entitled

entitled to

to relief

reliefunder

under Miller

Miller because

because he he was

was an

adult

adult when

when hehe committed

committed thethe murder

murder andand because

because the

the matter

matter was

was

already

already litigated

litigated in

in Appellant’s

Appellant's fourth

fourth PCRA

PCRA petition.

petition. [Petitioner]

[Petitioner]

appealed that decision, which .was affirmed. [See Commonwealth

appealed that decision, which ... was affirmed. [See Commonwealth

v.• Saunders,

Saunders, No.No. 2818

2818 EDA

EDA 2016,2016, [168

[168 A.3d

A.3d 346

346 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super.

2017)(Table)],

2017)Table)], 20172017 WLWL 1103040

1103040 and and 1103041,

1103041, atat *1

*1 and

and *2

2 (Pa.

(Pa.

Super.

Super. Ct.

Ct. Mar.

Mar. 24,

24, 2017)[(text)].

2017)[(text)].

After

After [Petitioner]

[Petitioner] filed

filedhishisfifth

fifthPCRA

PCRApetition,

petition,hehe ...... filed

filedaapetition

petition

for

for writ

writ ofof habeas

habeas corpus

corpus in in the

the civil

civil division

division of of thethe Court

Court ofof

Comm

Common on Pleas

Pleas ofofDelaware

DelawareCounty.

County. That Thatmotion

motionwaswastransferred

transferredto to

the

the criminal

criminal division. ... The

division .... The court

court treated

treated thethe request

request for for relief

reliefas

[Petitioner’s]

[Petitioner's] sixth PCRA petition,

sixth ·PCRA petition, and, and, after

after issuing

issuing notice,

notice,

dismissed

dismissed it. it. In

Inthe

the notice,

notice, the

the PCRA

PCRA court court opined

opined that thatthe the petition

petition

was

was untimely

untimely and andthethe issues

issues itit contained

contained werewerepreviously

previously litigated.

litigated.

Id. atat *1--2.

1-2. HeHe appealed

appealedthe the denial

denial of ofhishis sixth

sixthPCRA

PCRApetition, petition, andand

the

the superior

superior court

court [sic]

[sic] affirmed.

affirmed. Id. Id. atat *1.

Saunders

Saundersv.v. Brittain,

Brittain, et

etal,

al, 2020

2020 WL

WL 5505148,

5505148, infra,

infra, quoting

quotingand

andciting

citing Commonwealth

Commonwealthv.v. Sounder.

Saunder}>

supra (Emphasis added).

On March

March 12,

12, 2019,

2019, Defendant

Defendant Saunders

Saunders filed

filed aapro se federal

prose federal habeas

habeas petition.

petition. See

See CV-19

CV-19,■ ‘

1010.

1010. On

On March

March 15,

15, 2019,

2019, the

the Honorable

Honorable Eduardo

Eduardo C.

C. Robreno

Robreno referred

referred the

the matter

matter for

for preparation'

preparatio

ofaa report

report and

and recommendation.

recommendation. United

United States

States Magistrate

Magistrate David

David R.

R. Strawbridge’s

Strawbridge's resultant

resultant report

repo I

recommended

recommended the the summary

summary dismissal

dismissal of

of the

the Defendant’s

Defendant's habeas

habeas application.

application. See

See 2020

2020 WL|

5505148

5505148 supra.

supra. Upon

Upon review,

review, Judge

Judge Robreno

Robreno approved

approved and

and adopted

adopted the

the report

report and

and its;

is!I

recommendation

recommendation and

and denied

denied and

and dismissed

dismissed Defendant

Defendant Saunders’

Saunders' federal

federal habeas

habeas corpus

corpus petition.

petitio

See

See Order

Order dated

dated September

September 11, 2020,

11, 2020, Robreno,

Robreno, J.,

J., 2020

2020 WL

WL 5501308

5501308 (U.S.D.C.)(E.D.

(U.S.D.C.)CE.D. Pa.).

Pa.). j

After

After his

his unsuccessful

unsuccessful foray

foray into

into federal

federal court,

court, the

the Defendant

Defendant returned

returned to

to state

state court.

court. With

the original

original assigned,

assigned, presiding

presiding trial

trial judge,

judge, the

the Honorable

Honorable Joseph

Joseph P,

P, Cronin,

Cronin, Jr.

Jr. (now

(now retired)

retired) beirg

beirlg

elected

elected the

the thirty-second

thirty-second (32 nd) judicial

(32") judicial district’s

district's (Delaware

(Delaware County)

County) president

president judge

judge in

in 2008,

2008, tie

above-captioned

above-captioned matter

matter had

had been

been reassigned

reassigned to

to the

the Honorable

Honorable James

James P.

P. Bradley.

Bradley. The

The Defendant ’s

Defendant's

pro se PCRA

prose petition dated April

PCRApetition April 5,

5, 2021,

2021, and docketed on April

April 23,

23, 2021,

2021, and a subsequent

subsequentpro

pro .tese

Supplemental

Supplemental PCRA

PCRA Petition

Petition dated

dated November

November 1, 1, 2021,

2021, and

and docketed

docketed on

on November

November 10,

10, 2021',

202l1,

precipitated the appointment

appointment of two

two (2) different

different attorneys by Judge Bradley,

Bradley, both of whom

whom wereeI

later permitted

permitted to withdraw

withdraw due to conflicts.

conflicts. See AOPC Case Docket.

Docket. ;

With

Withthe

theage

agecompelled

compelledretirement

retirementof

ofJudge

JudgeBradley

Bradleyasasof

ofDecember

December31,

31,2021,

2021,the

theabove¬

above

captioned

captionedmatter

matterwas

wasultimately

ultimatelyininJune

June2022

2022reassigned

reassignedtotothis

thiscourt

courtand

andpresently

presentlyappointed

appointedPCRA

counsel

counsel assumed

assumedhis

hisrole

rolein

inrepresenting

representingDefendant

Defendant Saunders.

Saunders. See

See Order

Orderdated

dated April

April28,

28,2022

2022

Defendant’s

Defendant's Amended

Amended Petition

Petition docketed

docketed August

August 26,

26, 2022;

2022; PCRA H�aring Transcripts

PCRA Hearing N.T /

Transcripts - - N.T

2/24/23

2/24/23 and

and1

l1/20/23 ; and

1 /20/23; andPetitioner’s

Petitioner'sMemorandum

Memorandumof

ofLaw

Lawdocketed

docketedMarch

March6,6,2024.

2024. j

The

The Defendant

Defendant through

through his

his lawyer

lawyer on onAugust

August 26,

26, 2022,

2022, filed

filed an

an amended

amended PCRA

PCRApetition

petitio i

averring

averringthe

theprosecution

prosecutionimproperly

improperlyfailed

failedtotoprovide

provideDefendant

Defendant Saunders’

Saunders' trial

trial counsel

counselan

analleged

allege ’

police

police report

report —-- witness

witness statement

statement of

of an

an Eric

Eric Pettiford

Pettiford and

and that

that the

the “governmental

"governmental interference

interference]'’ I !

exception to

exception to the

the otherwise

otherwise applicable

applicable PCRA

PCRA time bar vested

time bar vested the

the courts

courts with

with the

the jurisdiction;

jurisdictiof.

necessary

necessaryto

to decide

decide such

such aa claim’s

claim's merits.

merits. See

SeeDefendant’s

Defendant'sAmended

AmendedPetition

Petition docketed

docketedAugust 2 J, i

August2t

2022,

2022, pp.

pp. 4-14.

4-14. See

Seegenerally

generally42 Pa.C.S. §95454(b)(l)(i)(“

42 Pa.C.S. §95454(b)(l)(i)(" ...

... [F]ailure

[F]ailure to

to raise

raise the

the claim

claim was

was ths I

result of

result ofgovernment

government interference

interference with

withthe

thepresentation ofthe

presentationof the claim

claim in

inviolation

violation of

ofthe

the Constitutio a

Constitutioh'

or laws . .”).

laws... ."). l

This court

This court by

by an

an order

order of

ofAugust 30, 2022,

August 30, 2022, directed

directed the

the Commonwealth

Commonwealth to

to lodge

lodge aa responf

responjed

- I

to the

the Defendant’s

Defendant's counseled,

counseled, amended

amended collateral

collateral petition.

petition. See

See Order

Order dated

dated August

August 30,

30, 2022.

2022. St

Sdee

also

also Defendant’s

Defendant's Amended

Amended Petition

Petition docketed

docketed August

August 26,

26, 2022.

2022. See

See generally

generally Pa.R.Crim.P.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 906.

906.'

After

After an

an unopposed

unopposed extension

extension request

request was

was allowed,

allowed, the

the prosecution

prosecution on

on December

December 13, 202L�

13, 202

filed its

filed its reply

reply in

in the

the form

form of Motion to

of aa Motion to Dismiss

Dismiss Amended

Amended Petition

Petition Under

Under the

the Post

Post Conviction

Convictionh

Relief Act

Act ....

.... See

See Commonwealth’s

Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss

Dismiss ... dated

dated December

December. 13,

13, 2022.

2022. See

See also

albI

Defendant’s

Defendant's Amended

Amended Petition docketed August

August 26,

26, 2022;

2022; Order

Order dated

dated August

August 30,

30, 2022;

2022; and Or r

and Order

dated

dated October

October 14,

14, 2022.

2022. See generally Pa.R.Crim.P.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 906.

906. t

Following

Followingits

itsthorough

thoroughreading

readingof

ofthe

thecompeting

competingdefense

defenseand

andCommonwealth

Commonwealthpleadings,

pleadings,asa i

well

wellasasaareview

reviewof

ofthe

theabove-caption

above-captionmatter’s

matter'sdirect

directand

andcollateral

collateralcase

casehistories,

histories,this

th.iscourt

courtvia

viaar . I

prder

orderof

ofJanuary

January5,5,2023,

2023,listed

listedaacollateral

collateralevidentiary

evidentiaryhearing

hearinglimited

limitedtoto"...

“ .. whether

whetherthe

thepetitions

petitione •

has

hasmeet

meetthe

the‘proof

'proofrequirements

requirementsunder

under42

42Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S.§9545(b)(i)

§9545(b)(i)oror(ii)

(ii)of

ofthe

thePost

PostConviction

ConvictionRelie::

Relie |

Act

Actnecessary

necessarytotothe

the courts

courtsjurisdictional

jurisdictional authority

authoritytotoadjudicate

adjudicatethe

thecollateral

collateralpleading’s merits.' I !

pleading'smerits.’

HearingNotice

Hearing Noticedated

datedJanuary

January5,5,2023

2023 (endnotes

(endnotesomitted).

omitted). jj

Such

Such an

an evidentiary

evidentiaryhearing

hearing was

was commenced

commenced as

as scheduled

scheduled on

on February

February 24,

24, 2023.

2023. Sec

Hearing

HearingNotice

Noticedated

datedJanuary

January5,5,2023;

2023;andN.T.

and N.T.2/24/23,

2/24/23,pp.

pp. 1-92.

1-92. The

Thepetitioner’s

petitioner'sPCRA

PCRAcounsel,

counse ।

Attorney

AttorneyWismer,

Wismer,requested

requestedthe

thehearing

hearingbe

beadjourned

adjournedafter

aftersome

somedefense

defensewitness

witnesstestimony

testimonytotoaffon

afforI j

him

himthe

theopportunity

opportunityto

to explore

explorethe

thepossibility

possibilityof

ofsecuring

securingadditional

additionalevidence.

evidence. N.T.

N.T.2/24/23,

2/24/23,pp.

pp. 90-1

90-!

92.

92. Once

Once such

such was

was better

better understood,

understood, he would contact

he would contact the

the court

court toto relist

relist for

for resumption

resumption thej

thb;

collateral

collateral proceeding.

proceeding. N.T.

N.T. 2/24/23,

2/24/23, p.

p. 92.

92. See

Seegenerally

generally Pa.R.Crim.P.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(B).

908(B). !

The

The court

court appreciating

appreciating the

the nature

nature of

of that

that which

which defense

defense counsel

counsel was

was attempting

attempting ta

accomplish waited

accomplish waited aa reasonable

reasonable period

period of

oftime

time before inquiring as

before inquiring as to

to the

the status

status of

ofthose

those efforts.

efforts. See

S el

Correspondence

Correspondence dated

dated June

June 27,

27, 2023.

2023. See

See also

also N.T.

N.T. 2/24/23,

2/24/23, pp.

pp. 90-91.

90-91. The

The lawyer

lawyer for

for tbJ]el

Defendant

Defendant timely

timely responded

responded and

and suggested

suggested aa listing in the

listing in the mid

mid to

to latter

latter part

part of

ofAugust

August 2023

2023. St e. Se

Correspondence

Correspondence dated

dated June

June 29,

29, 2023.

2023. The

The Commonwealth

Commonwealth relatedly

relatedly advised

advised that witness it'it

that aa witness

anticipated

anticipated presenting

presenting would

would not

not be

be available in the

available in the defense

defense proffered

proffered mid

mid to

to late

late August

August 202

20 3

timeframe

timeframe and

and requested

requested aa scheduling sometime

sometime after

after the

the first

first week

week of

of September

September 2023

2023. See

See Ems

E fi1I

Correspondence

Correspondence dated June

June 29,

29, 2023

2023. Chambers

Chambers personnel

personnel solicited from

from the

the involved attornes

involved attome; 4

next dates

dates of their and/or

and/or necessary

necessary witnesses’

witnesses' availability

availability and from

from among

among those dates, it

dates, consisteht

with

withthe

the court’s

court's calendaring

calendaring of

ofits

its various

various and

and numerous

numerous unrelated

unrelatedmatters,

matters, aaNovember

November 20,

20, 2023

2023 I

rescheduling

rescheduling was

was set.

set. See

See Order

Orderdated

dated October

October24,

24, 2023.

2023.

i। I

Onthat

thatdate

date(November

(November20,

20, 2023),

2023),the

therelisted

relistedcontinuation

continuationof

ofthe

thePCRA

PCRAevidentiary

evidentiaryhearing

hearin ; · । 1

took

tookplace

placeand

andconcluded.

concluded. See

SeeN.T.

N.T. 11/20/23,

11/20/23,pp.

pp. 1-63.

1-63. Upon

Uponcompletion

completionof

ofthe

theevidentiary

evidentiary hearing

hearin j

and

and admission

admission of

of exhibits,

exhibits, the

the court

court coordinated

coordinated aa briefing

briefing schedule

schedule with

with the

the parties’

parties' counsel.

counsel. Sec

Se j

N.T.

N.T. 11/20/23,

11/20/23, pp.

pp. 59-62.

59-62. After

After unopposed

unopposed extension

extension requests

requests from

from both

both sides,

sides, the

the defense

defense and

an i

prosecution

prosecution each

eachfiled

filed their

theirpost-hearing

post-hearingresponses.

responses. See

See Petitioner’s

Petitioner's Memorandum

Memorandum of

ofLaw

Law docketec

dockete I!

March

March 6,

6, 2024,

2024, and

and Commonwealth’s

Commonwealth's Response

Response to

to Petitioner’s

Petitioner's Post-Hearing

Post-Hearing Memorandum

Memorandum of

ofLav

docketed

docketed on

on May

May 1,1, 2024.

2024.

This

This court

court following

following its

its scrutinizing

scrutinizing of

of the

the PCRA

PCRA hearing

hearing record,

record, including

including the

the admitted

admitte ।

exhibits,

exhibits, and

and considering

considering the

the respective

respective arguments

arguments of

ofthe

the defenses

defenses and

and Commonwealth,

Commonwealth, as

as well

well asj

final review

aa final review of

of the

the relevant

relevant direct

direct and

and collateral case histories,

collateral case histories, by

by an

an order

order of

of June

June 28,

28, 2024,

2024,।

. .

dismissed

dismissed Defendant

Defendant Saunders’

Saunders' counseled,

counseled, amended

amended petition.

petition. See

See Order

Order dated

dated June

June 28,

28, 2024;

2024; ani an#

Defendant’s

Defendant's Amended

Amended Petition

Petition docketed

docketed August

August 26,

26, 2022.

2022. See

See also

also I

Commonwealth v.

Commonwealth v. Pew,

Pew, 189

189 A.3d

A.3d 486,

486, 488

488 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2O18)(“A11

2018)" AII PCRA

PCRA petitions must be

petitions must be filed

file

within one year

within one year of

of the

the date

date upon

upon which the judgment

which the judgment of sentence became

of sentence unless one

final, unless

became final, one of

of th

the

statutory exceptions

statutory exceptions set

set forth

forth in

in 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i-iii)

$9545(b)(1)i-iii) applies.”);

applies."); Commonwealth »l!

Commonwealth v.

Kretchmar, 189

Kretchmar, 189 A.3d

A.3d 459,

459, 462

462 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2018)

2018) quoting

quoting 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i)-(iii):

§9545(b)(l)(i)-(iii)

Commonwealth v. Staton,

Commonwealth v. Staton, 184

184 A.3d

A.3d 949,

949, 954

954 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2018)

2018) quoting

quoting Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.

v. Cox,

Cox, 636

Pa. 603,

Pa. 603, 613,

613, 146

146 A.3d221,227

A.3d 221, (2016);

(2016); Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.

• Johnson,

Johnson, 945

945 A.2d

A.2d 185,

185, 188

188 (Pa.Super

(Pa.Super],

2008); Commonwealth

2008); Commonwealth v.

v. Davis,

Davis, 916

916 A.2d

A.2d 1206,

1206, 1208-09

1208-09 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2007);

2007); and

and Commonwealth

Commonwealth v

v jj

Jackson, 30 A.3d

Jackson, 30 A.3d 516,

516, 518-19

518-19 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2011) 42 Pa.C.S.

2011) quoting 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b).

$9545(b). ।

Thus, for

Thus, for the

the courts

courts to

to have

have the

the requisite

requisite jurisdiction

jurisdiction to

to adjudicate

adjudicate any

any such

such collatenlj

collater

contentions, aa defendant

contentions, defendant must

must file

file aa PCRA

PCRA pleading,

pleading, including

including aa second

second or subsequent one(

or subsequent one(s),

s), withi

wi · n.

one

one (1)

(1) year

year from

from the

the date

date judgment of sentence

judgment of sentence becomes

becomes final.

final. 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l).

§9545(b)(l). Th

T ^

otherwise mandated one

otherwise mandated one (1)

(1) year

year filing

filing date is excused

date is excused only

only if

if aa defendant

defendant alleges

alleges and

and proves

proves one

one c 4

the statutory exceptions

the statutory exceptions as

as set

set forth

forth in subsections (i),

in subsections (i) and/or

(), (ii) and/or (iii) of the

(iii) of the act's

act’s section

section 9545,'

954.,

relating to

to government

government interference,

interference, newly

newly discovered

discovered evidence,

evidence, or

or aa constitutional

constitutional right

right recognizee

recognize 11

by the

the federal

federal and/or

and/or state supreme courts

state supreme courts that

that is

is applied

applied retroactively.

retroactively. 42

42 Pa.C.S,!

Pa.C.S]'

§9545(b)(l)(i)(ii)(iii).

§9545(b )(l)(i)(ii)(iii). See

See also

also Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Pew

Pew supra

supra 1

189 A.3d

A.3d at

at 488

488 (“All

(AII PCRA

PCRA petition:

petition i;'

must

must be

be filed

filed within

within one

one year

year of

of the

the date

date upon

upon which

which the

the judgment

judgment of

of sentence

sentence became

became final,

final !'

unless

unless one

one of

of the

the statutory

statutory exceptions

exceptions set

set forth

forth in

in 42

42 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(l)(i-iii)

$9545b)1)i-ii) applies.”);

applies."); | ;

Commonwealth v.• Kretchmar

Commonwealth Kretchmar supra

supra 189

189 A.3d

A.3d atat 462 quoting 42

462 quoting 42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i-iii);|

$9545(b)(1i-iii); ]

Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Staton,

Staton, 184

184 A.3d

A.3d 949,

949, 954

954 (Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super. 2018)

2018) quoting

quotingCommonwealth

Commonwealthv.v. Coxsupra\

Cox supr I

636

636 Pa.

Pa. at

at613,

613, 146

146 A.3d

A.3d at

at227;

227; Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Johnson

Johnsonsupra

supra 945

945 A.2d

A.2d at

at 188; Commonwealth

188; Commonwealt ii

v.v. Davis

Davis supra

supra 916

916 A.2d

A.2d atat 1208-09;

1208-09; and

and Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.• Jackson

Jackson supra

supra 30

30 A.3d

A.3d at

at 51

518-19 j

quoting

quoting42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §9545(b).

$9545(b). !

Even

Evenshould

shouldone

one(1)

(1) or

ormore

moreof

ofthese

thesestatutorily

statutorily enumerated

enumeratedexemptions

exemptionsto

tothe

theone

one (1)

(1) yea

ye r|

lodging

lodgingrequisite

requisiteattach,

attach,aadefendant

defendantfor

forpurposes

purposesof

ofthe

thecourt’s

court'snecessary

necessaryjurisdiction

jurisdictionmust

mustfile

fileany!

any'

such

suchcollateral

collateralpleading

pleading“" ...... within

withinone

oneyear

yearof

ofthe

thedate

datethe

theclaim

claim could

couldhave

havebeen presented." 44ll

beenpresented.”

Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.$. §9545(b)(2).

89545(0)(2). I I

. '

“[The

"[ThePennsylvania

Pennsylvania Supreme

Supreme Court

Courthas]

has] repeatedly

repeatedly stated

stated itit isisthe

the appellant’s burden tatb]

appellant's burden

allege

allegeand

andprove

provethat

thatone

oneof

ofthe

thetimeliness

timelinessexceptions

exceptionsapplies.

applies. Whether

Whether[the

[theappellant]

appellant]has

hascarried

carrie ll

his

hisburden

burdenisisaathreshold

thresholdinquiry

inquiryprior

priortotoconsidering

considering the

themerits

meritsof

ofany

anyclaim.”

claim." Commonwealth

Commonwealth ■>. .1

Edmiston,

Edmiston,65

65A.3d

A.3d339,

339,346

346(Pa.

(Pa.2013)(citation

2013)citationomitted),

omitted),cert,

cert. denied,

denied,Edmiston

Edmistno v.• Pennsylvania,

Pennsylvanid,

571

571U.S.

U.S. 1026,

1026, 134

134S.Ct.

S.Ct..639

639(2013). “ ...... [I]t

(2013)." f!ftisisthe

thepetitioner

petitioner who

whobears

bearsthe

theburden

burdentotoallege^

alle /

and

andprove

provethat

thatone

oneof

ofthe

thetimeliness

timelinessexceptions

exceptionsapplies.”

applies." Commonwealth

Commonwealthv.v.Reid,

Reid,235

235A.3d

A.3d1124;

1124,

1158

1158(Pa.

(Pa.2020)(Emphasis

2020)Emphasisadded);

added);Commonwealth

Commonwealthv.•Natividad,

Natividad, 596

596Pa.

Pa.587,

587,596,

596,947

947A.2d

A.2d714;

71+}

719

719(2008)(citation

(2008)citationomitted); Commonwealthv.».Pew

omitted);Commonwealth Pewsupra

supra189

189A.3d

A.3datat488

488citing

citingCommonwealth

Commonweallh

v.v.Taylor,

Taylor,6565A.3d

A.3d462,

462,468

468(Pa.Super.

(Pa.Super.2013)(Emphasis

2013)Emphasisadded)(“77ze

added)("Thepetitioner

petitionerbears

bearsthe

theburden

burdn

10 !

ofpleading

pleading and

and proving

proving an

an applicable

applicable statutory

statutory exception.

exception. If

If the

the petition

petition is

is untimely

untimely and

and th<

th r (

petitioner

petitioner has

has not

notpled

pledand

andproven

proven an

an exception,

exception, the

thepetition

petition must

mustbe

be dismissed

dismissed without

without aa hearing

hearin f

because

because Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania courts

courts are

are without

without the

thejurisdiction

jurisdiction to

to consider

consider the

the merits

merits of

ofthe

the petition ”y, '

petition."k'

and

and Commonwealth

Commonwealth v.v. Towles,

Towles, 300

300 A.3d

A.3d 402,

402, 415

415 (Pa.

(Pa. 2023)

2023) citing

citing and

and quoting Commonwealth k .'!

quoting Commonwealth

Abu-Jamal,

Abu-Jamal, 941

941 A.2d

A.2d 1263,

1263, 1268

1268 (Pa.

(Pa. 2008), cert denied,

2008), cert denied, 555

555 U.S.

U.S. 916,

916, 129

129 S.C.

S.C. 271

271 (2008

(2008 )|

and

and 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i-ni)

§9545(b)(l)(i-iii) and

and (2).

(2). |I

The

The Superior

Superior Court

Court has

has many

many times

times over

over held

held second

second or

or subsequent

subsequent PCRA

PCRApetitions

petitions untimel

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.