NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION — SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.
Anthony DeLoatch ("DeLoatch"), pro se, appeals from the Order dismissing his Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA").
On August 15, 1990, following a non-jury trial, DeLoatch was found guilty of first-degree murder and related charges. On March 1, 1994, DeLoatch was sentenced to an aggregate term of life in prison. This Court affirmed DeLoatch's judgment of sentence, and the Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on October 13, 1995.
DeLoatch subsequently filed five PCRA Petitions, all of which were dismissed.
DeLoatch filed the instant PCRA Petition, his sixth, on August 3, 2012. DeLoatch subsequently filed a "Motion to Vacate Judgment Procured Through Fraud" on April 30, 2013. The PCRA court treated the Motion as a supplemental filing to the PCRA Petition. Thereafter the PCRA court issued a Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Petition. The PCRA court thereafter dismissed the Petition. DeLoatch filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
Initially, under the PCRA, any PCRA petition "shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final[.]" 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9454(b)(1). A judgment of sentence 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."
DeLoatch's sentence became final on January 11, 1996, after the time to seek review with the United States Supreme Court had expired.
However, Pennsylvania courts may consider an untimely petition if the appellant can explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Any petition invoking one of these exceptions "shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented."
Here, DeLoatch did not plead or prove any exception to the PCRA's timeliness requirement. Instead, DeLoatch attempts to reintroduce a previously raised
Thus, because DeLoatch did not invoke any of the three exceptions necessary to circumvent the PCRA's timeliness requirement, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of his claims on appeal.