# Com. v. Saunder, S. > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 25, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11208702 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** November 25, 2025 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Nichols - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11208702 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that “no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition” (citation omitted) ## Opinion text J-S33046-25 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAWN SAUNDERS : : Appellant : No.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 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1537-00 v. v. r 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;_ .c EDA^24 · tr d:..-11 ;'-: 3 -zja .g·pet -.r a.5 C o '- . r} William P. Wismer, Esquire -- Attorney for Shawn Saunders g- -.+€2 5, J.� :;..J rc\ . I r<» OPINION OPINION Kelly, J. J. Kelly, ·Date: January 31, 2025 Date: January 31, 2025 I. Introduction 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 । I Order Orderdated datedJune June28, 28,2024. 2024.See Seealso alsoDefendant’s Defendant'sAmended AmendedPCRA PCRAPetition Petitiondocketed docketedAugust August26, 26,, 2022. 2022. ' i 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 I andforwarded and forwardedthat thatsame samedayday(July (July29,29,2024) 2024)totothe theDelaware DelawareCounty CountyJudicial JudicialSupport Officefcfdr|r SupportOffice I 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 I 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). ! I I 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. 22 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: : I I , ~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 I 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 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 i 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, JI 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. I Id. I (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 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^: 33 [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 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]. 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 of 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, 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 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 offenders who are eighteen years of age or older when they committed committed the the murder). murder). *2 2 Next, Next, [Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed filed aa motion motion arguing arguing that that the the court court had had no no authority to impose its sentence and seeking facts regarding its 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), [(Table)](unpublished memorandum), [2015 WL 7078875] (text), 3383 3383 EDA EDA 2014]. 2014]. On On April April 11, 11, 2016, 2016, [Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed hishis fifth fifth PCRA PCRA petition. petition. He 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 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)]. 44 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 as [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 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. 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). supra (Emphasis added). On 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 of 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 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 Wi I 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, I 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. ; i i 55 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 PC 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 I 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 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 ! 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. I 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' I or or laws . .”). laws... ."). l I 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 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 I 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 I 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 i dated dated October October 14, 14, 2022. 2022. See generally Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 906. 906. t I 66 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.’ I 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 Se 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-! I 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). ! I 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 t 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 l 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 iI 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 I 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 I next 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 i 7 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 ! On 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 La 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~Sm. also N.T. 2/24/23; 2/24/23; N.T. N.T. 11/20/22 11/20/23;l . Petitioner’s Petitioner's Memorandum Memorandum of of Law Law docketed docketed March March 6, 6, 2024, 2024, and and Commonwealth’s Commonwealths Response Response ta! Petitioner’s Petitioner's Post-Hearing Memorandum Memorandum of Law Law docketed docketed on May May 1, 1, 2024. 2024. ! I I HL III. Discussion I Before reaching reaching the supposed supposed merits of the Defendant’s Defendant's collateral claim, the timelinessofi collateral claim, of Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' current current PCRA PCRA petition petition given given the the above-recounted above-recounted and and approximate approximate twenty twen I i 88 I I (20) (20) year case record year case record was was aa requisite, requisite, threshold threshold inquiry inquiry to to determine determine if if the the courts courts enjoyed enjoyed to to/' adjudicate adjudicate any any such such contentions contentions necessaiy necessary jurisdiction. jurisdiction. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Miller, Miller, 102 102 A.3d A.3d 988, 992 988, 992 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2014). 2014). A defendant A defendant must must file file aa PCRA PCRA petition petition within one (1) within one (1) year year from from the the date date the the judgment judgment of o sentence sentence becomes becomes final. final. 42 Pa.C.S. 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l). §9545(b)(l), A sentencing A sentencing judgment judgment becomes for ! final for becomes fmal purposes of the purposes of the Post Post Conviction Relief Act Conviction Relief Act “" . ..•... at at the the conclusion conclusion of of direct direct review, review, including including discretionary review discretionary review in in the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of of the the United United States States and and the the Supreme Court of Supreme Court o Pennsylvania, or Pennsylvania, or at at the the expiration expiration of of time time for seeking the for seeking the review.” review." 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3). 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3). “The "The ! timeliness of timeliness of aa PCRA PCRA petition petition is is jurisdictional. jurisdictional. If aa PCRA PCRA petition petition is is untimely, untimely, aa court lacks court lacks] jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. jurisdiction." Commonwealth v. Reeves, Reeves, 296 296 A.3d A.3d 1228, 1228, 1230-31 1230-31 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2023). 2023). 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. i 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 63 ' 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], I 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., 99 relating to to government government interference, interference, newly newly discovered discovered evidence, evidence, or or aa constitutional constitutional right right recognizee recognize 11 by 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 !' I i 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). $9545(b). ! i Even Evenshould shouldone one(1) (1) or ormore moreof ofthese thesestatutorily statutorily enumerated enumeratedexemptions exemptionsto tothe theone one (1) (1) yea ye r| lodging lodgingrequisite requisiteattach, attach,aadefendant defendantfor forpurposes purposesof ofthe thecourt’s court'snecessary necessaryjurisdiction jurisdictionmust mustfile fileany! any' such suchcollateral collateralpleading pleading“" ...... within withinone oneyear yearof ofthe thedate datethe theclaim claim could couldhave havebeen presented." 44ll beenpresented.” Pa.C.S. Pa.C.$. §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, l 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, I 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 10 ! of 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 I 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' I 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 )| i I 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 untimel r ‘ when when such such collateral collateral pleadings pleadings were were not not filed filed within within one one (1) (1) year year after after aa defendant’s defendant's judgment judgment oo 1 I sentence sentence became became final. fmal. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Smallwood, Smallwood, 155 155 A.3d A.3d 1054, 1054, 1059 1059 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2017)i 2017 ! citing 42 citing 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(2) $9545(b)1)2) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Alcorn, Alcorn, 703 703 A.2d A.2d 1054, 1054, 1056-57 1056-57l (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1997); 1997); Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v». Furgess, Furgess, 149 149 A.3d A.3d 90, 90, 92 92 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2016) 2016) citing citing 42 42 Pa.C.S.j Pa.C .. j §9545(b).). Commonwealth §9545(b Commonwealth v.v. Johnson, Johnson, 945 945 A.2d A.2d 185,1 185, 188 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2008); 2008); and and Commonwealth Commonwealth i 1.. j I Davis,916 Davis,916A.2d 1206, 1206, 1208-09 1208-09 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2007). 2007). Moreover, Moreover, aa second second or or additional additional PCRA PCRA pleading pleadin s|j will will only only be be considered considered if if aa defendant defendant demonstrates demonstrates that that the the proceedings proceedings resulting resulting in in his his convictio convictio ijj I were were so so unfair unfair that that aa miscarriage miscarriage of of justice justice occurred occurred which which no no civilized civilized society society can can tolerate, tolerate, or or a· . I defendant defendant is is innocent innocent ofthe convicted crimes. Commonwealth oftheconvictedcrimes. Commonwealth v. v. Lawson, Lawson, 519 519 Pa. Pa. 504,513-14, 504, 513-14, 54 54 9i1 A.2d A.2d 107, 107, 112 112 (1988) (1988) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Szuchon, 534 v. Szuchon, 534 Pa. Pa. 483, 483, 487, 487, 633 633 A.2d A.2d 1098, 1098, 1100*! 110 (1993). (1993). See See also also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Hawkins, Hawkins, 598 598 Pa. Pa. 85, 91, 953 85,91, 953 A.2d A.2d 1248, 1248, 125 12511 (2006)(“A (2006)("A second) seco / or or subsequent subsequent request request for for relief reliefunder under the the PCRA PCRA will will not not be be entertained entertained unless unless the petitionerpresen J8' the petitioner aa strong strong prima prima facie facie showing showing that that aa miscarriage miscarriage of of justice justice may may have have occurred.”) occurred.") citing citi Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Carpenter, Carpenter, 555 555 Pa. Pa. 434, 447, 725 A.2d 434,447,725 A.2d 154, 154, 160 160 (1999); (1999); and and Commonwealth Commonwealth >.| Williams, 442 Williams, 442 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 590, 590, 599, 599, 660 660 A.2d A.2d 614, 618 (1995)(“ 614, 618 (1995)(" ... ... [I]n [I]n aa second second or or subsequent subsequent po po}t conviction conviction proceeding, proceeding, all all issues issues are are waived waived except except those those which which implicate implicate aa defendant’s defendant's innocent innocendee I 11 11 or which raise the possibility that that the proceedings proceedings resulting in conviction were were so unfair unfair that that u; I miscarriage ofjustice which no no civilized civilized society can tolerate occurred.”)- occurred."). I On On April April 9, 9, 2001, 2001, Defendant Defendant Saunders Saunders was was sentenced. sentenced. See See Certificate of of Imposition Imposition o' o Judgment Judgment of Sentence Sentence dated April April 9, 9, 2001. 2001. The The Superior Superior Court Court via its its opinion opinion dated dated August August 27, 2 2002, 2002, affirmed affirmed on on direct direct appeal appeal his his conviction. conviction. See See Superior Superior Court Court No. No. 245 EDA 2001 245 EDA 2001 --- Opinion Opinio ; dated August August 27, 27, 2002, 2002, 809 809A.2d A.2d 964 964 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2002)(Table). 2002)(Table). The The Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofPennsylvania Pennsylvani on on December December 2, 2, 2003, 2003, denied denied allocatur allocatur as as to to the the Defendant’s Defendant's direct direct appeal’s appeal's affirmance. affirmance. See See 73! 73 : MAL MAL 2002, 2002, 576 576 Pa. Pa. 712, 712, 839 839 A.2d A.2d 352 352 (2003)(Table). (2003)(Table). From From the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofPennsylvania’ Pennsylvania' > j denying denyinghis hisdirect direct appeal’s appeal'sallowance allowancepetition. petition,Defendant Defendant Saunders Saundersdid didnot notseek seekwith withthe theUnited United State State s ■ Supreme Supreme Court Court aa writ writ of ofcertiorari. certiorari. Hence, Hence, after after recognizing recognizing the the ninety ninety (90) (90) day day period period for for filing filing a; certiorari certiorari writ writ with withthe the Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofthe the United United States, States, the the Defendant’s Defendant's sentencing judgment sentencingjudgme atatbar barbecame becamefinal final on onMarch March 1,1, 2004. 2004. See SeeCertificate Certificateof ofImposition Impositionof ofJudgment Judgmentof ofSentence Sentencedated date , April April 9,9, 2001; 2001; Superior Superior Court CourtNo. No. 245 245 EDA EDA2001 2001 supra,- supra; and andPennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court CourtNo. No. 73 73 ! • I MAL MAL 2002 2002 supra. supra. See See also also U.S.Sup.Ct.R. U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13.1; 13.1; 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3); $9545(b)(3); Pennsylvania Superio I Pennsylvania Superior! ! Court CourtNo. No. 1476 1476EDA EDA2013 2013 —--Opinion Opinionfiled filedApril April2,2,2014; 2014;and and Commonwealth Commonwealthv.». Saunders, Saunders, 102 102 A.3di A.3 I 519 519 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2014)(Table), 2014)Table), 2014 2014 WL WL 10965060 10965060 (text)(“... (text)"... [Petitioner’s] [Petitioner's] judgment judgment of ofsentence' sentencf J became became final final on on March March 1,1, 2004, 2004, ninety ninety days days after after our our Supreme Supreme Court Court denied denied review, review, and and ...| ... [Petitioner] [Petitioner]had haduntil untilMarch March 1,1,2005, 2005,totopresent presentaatimely timelyPCRA PCRApetition.”) petition.") Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' most most current current serial serialpro pro se se filing filing ininthe the above-captioned above-captioned matter matterwas w lodged lodgedininApril April2021, 2021, more morethan thanseventeen seventeen(17) 17)years years after afterhis his sentencing sentencingjudgement judgementbecame becamefcr fqd ] Post PostConviction ConvictionRelief ReliefAct Actpurposes purposesfinal. 13 See final." SeePetition Petitiondated datedApril April5,5,2021, 2021,and anddocketed docketedon onApr Apr1 1/ I 23, 23,2021. 2021. See Seealso also42 42Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S.§9545(b)(l)(3). §9545(b)(l)(3). 12 12 £ The statutory time The statutory time bar bar set set forth forth in the Post in the Post Conviction Conviction Relief Relief Act’s Act's section section 9545 9545 is is mandator mandato ' j as as well as jurisdictional well as in nature jurisdictional in nature and and may may not not thus thus be be altered altered or or disregarded disregarded to to reach reach the the merits merits oo f claims claims raised raised in in belated belated collateral collateral filings. filings. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Taylor, 933 A.2d, Taylor, 933 A.2d. 1035, 1035, 1033: 103 (Pa.Super. 2007) (Pa.Super. 2007) citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1, 4, Pa. 1, 4, 753 753 A.2d A.2d 201, 201, 203 203 (2000). (2000). These) Thes jurisdictional requisites jurisdictional requisites of of the the act act must must accordingly accordingly be be strictly strictly construed. construed. Commonwealth i. Commonwealth I Garcia, 23 A.3d Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059, 1059, 1061 1061 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2011), 2011), appeal appeal denied, denied, 38 38 A.3d A.3d 823 823 (Pa. (Pa. 2012); 2012); anJ an' Commonwealth v. Commonwealth ». Towles Towles supra supra 300 300 A.3d A.3d at at 414-15 414-15 quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal supra v. Abu-Jamal supra 94 94 1 1i A.2d at 1267-68. A.2d at 1267-68. Courts Courts simply simply cannot cannot adjudicate adjudicate those those issues issues raised raised in in an an untimely untimely PCRA PCRA petitior petition.. iI Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Brown, Brown, 596 596 Pa. Pa. 354, 354, 359, 359, 943 943 A.2d A.2d 264, 264, 267 267 (2008) (2008) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth i..'; Crews, 581 Pa. Crews,581 Pa. 45, 45, 50, 50, 863 863 A.2d A.2d 498, 498, 501 (2004). See 501 (2004). See also also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Mitchell, Mitchell, 141 141 A.3