The opinion
J-S13008-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHARIFF BUTLER :
:
Appellant : No. 2611 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 20, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0409891-2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHARIFF BUTLER :
:
Appellant : No. 2612 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 20, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0415571-2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHARIFF BUTLER :
:
Appellant : No. 2613 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 20, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0415591-2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-S13008-26
:
v. :
:
:
SHARIFF BUTLER :
:
Appellant : No. 2614 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 20, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0700562-2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SHARIFF BUTLER :
:
Appellant : No. 2615 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 20, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0700571-2002
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 2, 2026
Shariff Butler appeals pro se from the order dismissing his petitions filed
pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 Butler asserts the PCRA
court erred in finding he did not establish a timeliness exception. We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history:
From September 18, 2001, to September 23, 2001, [Butler] and
several accomplices attacked Craig Brown and his girlfriend,
Patricia Mack. [Butler] believed Brown owed him money for drugs.
[Brown] and [Mack] were robbed, assaulted, and kidnapped. On
____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
-2-
J-S13008-26
September 23, 2001, … Brown was found dead from multiple
gunshot wounds.
On June 10, 2003, in a jury trial before the Honorable John J.
Poserina, Jr., [Butler] was convicted of possession of a controlled
substance, attempted burglary, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping,
burglary, robbery, and [carrying a firearm without a license, 2] for
which he received an aggregate sentence of twenty-seven and
one-half to fifty-five years imprisonment. [Butler] was acquitted
of murder.
[Butler] appealed, and [this Court] affirmed the judgment of
sentence on December 27, 2004. [Butler] filed an allocatur
petition, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on
April 19, 2005.
On May 4, 2006, [Butler] filed a timely pro se PCRA petition.
Appointed PCRA counsel, Gary S. Server, Esq., initially filed a
Turner/Finley[3] no-merit letter, but subsequently filed an
amended PCRA. The petition was dismissed without a hearing on
September 4, 2008, and on September 25, 2008, [Butler] filed a
pro se notice of appeal. On July 1, 2010, [this Court] affirmed the
dismissal of [Butler’s] PCRA petition. On February 16, 2011,
[Butler] filed an allocatur petition, which was denied by the
Supreme Court on August 8, 2011.
On May 17, 2012, [Butler] filed his second PCRA petition. The
petition was dismissed as untimely on February 6, 2013. [Butler]
appealed. On January 16, 2014, [this Court] affirmed the
dismissal of [Butler’s] second PCRA petition. [Butler] filed an
allocatur petition, which was denied on July 8, 2014.
On February 26, 2016, [Butler] filed his third PCRA petition, which
was dismissed as time-barred. … On January 12, 2022, [this
Court] affirmed the dismissal of [Butler’s] third PCRA petition.
____________________________________________
2 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(30; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 903, 2901, 3502, 3701,
and 6106, respectively.
3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
-3-
J-S13008-26
On October 10, 2022, [Butler] filed the instant petition—his
fourth—alleging constitutional violations and ineffectiveness of
former PCRA counsel, Gary Server. On April 3, 2023, [Butler] filed
an amended pro se PCRA petition claiming that (i) PCRA counsel,
Gary Server, was ineffective for filing a Finley letter requesting
dismissal of [Butler’s] Rule 600b claim and (ii) [Butler’s] 14th
Amendment rights were violated as a result of the alleged Rule
600b claim dismissal.
On June 20, 2023, [Butler] filed a supplemental petition raising an
additional claim that PCRA counsel was ineffective for “failure to
raise petitioner’s preserved self-representation right violation”
claim. On August 20, 2024, the Honorable Scott DiClaudio, sitting
as the PCRA court[,] dismissed [Butler’s] PCRA petition[s]. [On
September 17, 2024, Butler filed a notice of appeal.]
PCRA Court Opinion, 7/9/25, at 1-2 (pagination added for ease of reference,
some formatting altered).
The PCRA court did not order Butler to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
The PCRA court authored its opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) on July 9, 2025.
Before we can address the merits of Butler’s claims, we first must
determine if the PCRA court, and thus, this Court, has jurisdiction to hear the
claims.
A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the petitioner’s
judgment of sentence becoming final. A judgment becomes final
at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review
in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the
review. The timeliness of a PCRA petition is jurisdictional. If a
PCRA petition is untimely, a court lacks jurisdiction. Without
jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address
the substantive claims.
Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1230-31 (Pa. Super. 2023)
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
-4-
J-S13008-26
Butler’s conviction became final on July 18, 2005. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(3); U.S. Supreme Ct. Rule 13(a) (allowing 90 days to file a petition
for writ of certiorari). He therefore had until July 18, 2006, to file a PCRA
petition. The petitions filed October 10, 2022, April 3, 2023, and June 20,
2023, were patently untimely. As such, this Court does not have jurisdiction
to hear Butler’s claims unless he pled and proved a timeliness exception.
There are three timeliness exceptions:
(1) interference by government officials in the presentation of the
claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized
constitutional right. A petition invoking an exception to the
jurisdictional time-bar must be filed within one year that the claim
could have been presented. If a petitioner fails to invoke a valid
exception, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the petition or
provide relief.
Reeves, 296 A.3d at 1231 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Butler argues that Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa.
2021), created a newly discovered fact that allows him to raise prior PCRA
counsel’s ineffectiveness. See Appellant’s Brief, at 33. Butler misconstrues the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Bradley.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Bradley that “a PCRA
petitioner may, after a PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new
counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the
first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.” Bradley, 261 A.3d at 401
(footnote omitted). About four years later, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
laid to rest any claim that Bradley created a timeliness exception to the PCRA
-5-
J-S13008-26
time bar. See Commonwealth v. Laird, 331 A.3d 579, 594 (Pa. 2025).
There, the Court held:
Laird first argues that our decision in Bradley extends (or must
be extended) to include the opportunity to challenge prior PCRA
counsel’s effectiveness in a serial PCRA petition, even if it is
untimely. However, we agree with the Commonwealth that not
only did Bradley say no such thing, but that the rationale of that
decision cannot be extended to circumvent the PCRA’s
jurisdictional time-bar.
***
Today, we put to rest any residual doubt regarding Bradley’s
viability as an equitable exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. As we
stated in [Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 833 A.2d 719, 724
(Pa. 2003)], IAC claims cannot generate equitable exceptions to
the PCRA’s time-bar. Because courts lack jurisdiction to hear an
untimely PCRA petition, they necessarily lack jurisdiction to
consider ancillary matters like IAC claims.
Id. at 594, 599 (citations and footnote omitted).
Finally, we note that “a judicial opinion—even one which may establish
a new theory or method of obtaining relief—does not amount to a new fact
under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 235
A.3d 1124, 1148 (Pa. 2020); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, 350 A.3d
12, 30 (Pa. 2026) (“the publication of a legal decision is not a fact[.]”)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
As such, Bradley did not and cannot establish a timeliness exception
for Butler’s untimely PCRA petitions. Butler’s claim to the contrary therefore
fails. Because Butler has failed to plead and prove a timeliness exception,
neither the PCRA court nor this Court has jurisdiction to review Butler’s claims.
-6-
J-S13008-26
Hence, we affirm the order of the PCRA court dismissing Butler’s PCRA
petitions.
Order affirmed.
Date: 6/2/2026
-7-