J-S32020-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JESUS M. GARCIA : : Appellant : No. 229 MDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 15, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000829-2008
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 12, 2025
Jesus M. Garcia appeals pro se from the order denying his “Motion to
Clarify or Correct Unlawful Sentence.” The lower court treated this as a serial
petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
46. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows. On November
6, 2008, a jury convicted Garcia of multiple offenses resulting from his
participation in a cocaine distribution network in Lebanon County. On January
28, 2009, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 25 to 52 years of
imprisonment. Garcia appealed. On December 24, 2009, we affirmed Garcia’s
convictions, but remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed a
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S32020-25
maximum sentence on two counts that exceeded the applicable statutory
maximum for the offenses. Commonwealth v. Garcia, 990 A.2d 43 (Pa.
Super. 2009) (non-precedential decision).
On May 5, 2010, the trial court resentenced Garcia to a 25 to 40-year
aggregate term of imprisonment. Garcia appealed. On May 9, 2011, we
affirmed Garcia’s judgment of sentence, and, on April 10, 2012, our Supreme
Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Garcia,
30 A.3d 533 (Pa. Super. 2011) (non-precedential decision), appeal denied, 42
A.3d 290 (Pa. 2012). Garcia did not seek further review.
On April 30, 2012, Garcia filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, the PCRA
court appointed counsel, and PCRA counsel filed an amended petition.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied Garcia’s petition on
March 13, 2013. Garcia appealed. On February 18, 2014, we affirmed the
order denying post-conviction relief, and, on September 10, 2014, our
Supreme Court denied Garcia’s petition for allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 97 A.3d 804 (Pa. Super. 2014) (non-precedential
decision), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 924 (Pa. 2014).
On July 10, 2015, Garcia filed a “Motion for Extraordinary Relief,” which
the court treated as Garcia’s second PCRA petition. On August 25, 2015, the
PCRA court dismissed this petition as untimely. Garcia appealed. This Court
affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on January 29, 2016.
-2- J-S32020-25
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 136 A.3d 1041 (Pa. Super. 2016) (non-
precedential decision).
On November 29, 2024, Garcia filed the motion at issue, which the court
treated as his third PCRA petition. The Commonwealth filed a motion to
dismiss. On December 19, 2024, the PCRA court issued a Criminal Rule 907
notice of its intent to dismiss the petition as untimely. Garcia filed a pro se
response. By order entered January 15, 2015, the PCRA court dismissed
Garcia’s third petition as untimely. This appeal followed. Both Garcia and the
PCRA court have complied with Appellate Rule 1925.
Garcia raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Did the [PCRA court violate Garcia’s] constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law when it unlawfully sentenced [Garcia] to a minimum that was more than one-half of his maximum sentence[?]
II. Did the [PCRA court violate Garcia’s] constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law when it unlawfully converted [his] motion to correct his unlawful sentence into a PCRA and denied it as untimely filed[?]
Garcia’s Brief at 4 (excess capitalization omitted).
Before addressing these claims, we must first determine whether the
PCRA court correctly concluded that Garcia’s third PCRA petition was untimely
filed.1 ____________________________________________
1 Because Garcia’s illegal sentence claim is cognizable under the PCRA, the
court properly treated Garcia’s 2024 filing as a serial PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 190 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2013)(explaining that, if the claim is cognizable under the PCRA, a post- (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-S32020-25
The timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional.
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA must be filed within one year
of the date the judgment becomes final unless the petition alleges, and the
petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for filing the petition is met.
The three narrow statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar are as
follows: “(1) interference by government officials in the presentation of the
claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized constitutional
right.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii)). In addition, exceptions to the PCRA’s
time bar must be pled in the petition and may not be raised for the first time
on appeal. Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super.
2007); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that issues not raised before the
lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).
Moreover, a PCRA petition invoking one of these statutory exceptions must be
filed within one year of the date the claim could have been presented. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
Finally, if a PCRA petition is untimely, and the petitioner has not pled
and proven an exception, “neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has
conviction motion or petition may be treated as a PCRA petition regardless of the title of the document filed).
-4- J-S32020-25
jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the
legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v.
Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
Here, Garcia’s judgment of sentence became final on July 9, 2012,
ninety days after our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of
appeal and the time for filing a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); U.S. Sup.Ct. R. 13.1.
Therefore, Garcia had until July 9, 2013 to file a timely petition. Because
Garcia filed the petition at issue over ten years later, it is patently untimely
unless he has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that one of the
enumerated exceptions applies. See Hernandez, supra.
Garcia has failed to plead let alone prove an exception to the PCRA’s
time bar. Moreover, although illegal sentencing issues cannot be waived, they
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S32020-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JESUS M. GARCIA : : Appellant : No. 229 MDA 2025
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 15, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000829-2008
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 12, 2025
Jesus M. Garcia appeals pro se from the order denying his “Motion to
Clarify or Correct Unlawful Sentence.” The lower court treated this as a serial
petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-
46. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows. On November
6, 2008, a jury convicted Garcia of multiple offenses resulting from his
participation in a cocaine distribution network in Lebanon County. On January
28, 2009, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 25 to 52 years of
imprisonment. Garcia appealed. On December 24, 2009, we affirmed Garcia’s
convictions, but remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed a
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S32020-25
maximum sentence on two counts that exceeded the applicable statutory
maximum for the offenses. Commonwealth v. Garcia, 990 A.2d 43 (Pa.
Super. 2009) (non-precedential decision).
On May 5, 2010, the trial court resentenced Garcia to a 25 to 40-year
aggregate term of imprisonment. Garcia appealed. On May 9, 2011, we
affirmed Garcia’s judgment of sentence, and, on April 10, 2012, our Supreme
Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Garcia,
30 A.3d 533 (Pa. Super. 2011) (non-precedential decision), appeal denied, 42
A.3d 290 (Pa. 2012). Garcia did not seek further review.
On April 30, 2012, Garcia filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, the PCRA
court appointed counsel, and PCRA counsel filed an amended petition.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied Garcia’s petition on
March 13, 2013. Garcia appealed. On February 18, 2014, we affirmed the
order denying post-conviction relief, and, on September 10, 2014, our
Supreme Court denied Garcia’s petition for allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 97 A.3d 804 (Pa. Super. 2014) (non-precedential
decision), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 924 (Pa. 2014).
On July 10, 2015, Garcia filed a “Motion for Extraordinary Relief,” which
the court treated as Garcia’s second PCRA petition. On August 25, 2015, the
PCRA court dismissed this petition as untimely. Garcia appealed. This Court
affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on January 29, 2016.
-2- J-S32020-25
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 136 A.3d 1041 (Pa. Super. 2016) (non-
precedential decision).
On November 29, 2024, Garcia filed the motion at issue, which the court
treated as his third PCRA petition. The Commonwealth filed a motion to
dismiss. On December 19, 2024, the PCRA court issued a Criminal Rule 907
notice of its intent to dismiss the petition as untimely. Garcia filed a pro se
response. By order entered January 15, 2015, the PCRA court dismissed
Garcia’s third petition as untimely. This appeal followed. Both Garcia and the
PCRA court have complied with Appellate Rule 1925.
Garcia raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Did the [PCRA court violate Garcia’s] constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law when it unlawfully sentenced [Garcia] to a minimum that was more than one-half of his maximum sentence[?]
II. Did the [PCRA court violate Garcia’s] constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law when it unlawfully converted [his] motion to correct his unlawful sentence into a PCRA and denied it as untimely filed[?]
Garcia’s Brief at 4 (excess capitalization omitted).
Before addressing these claims, we must first determine whether the
PCRA court correctly concluded that Garcia’s third PCRA petition was untimely
filed.1 ____________________________________________
1 Because Garcia’s illegal sentence claim is cognizable under the PCRA, the
court properly treated Garcia’s 2024 filing as a serial PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 190 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2013)(explaining that, if the claim is cognizable under the PCRA, a post- (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-S32020-25
The timeliness of a post-conviction petition is jurisdictional.
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Generally, a petition for relief under the PCRA must be filed within one year
of the date the judgment becomes final unless the petition alleges, and the
petitioner proves, that an exception to the time for filing the petition is met.
The three narrow statutory exceptions to the one-year time bar are as
follows: “(1) interference by government officials in the presentation of the
claim; (2) newly discovered facts; and (3) an after-recognized constitutional
right.” Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231, 233-34 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii)). In addition, exceptions to the PCRA’s
time bar must be pled in the petition and may not be raised for the first time
on appeal. Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521, 525 (Pa. Super.
2007); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that issues not raised before the
lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).
Moreover, a PCRA petition invoking one of these statutory exceptions must be
filed within one year of the date the claim could have been presented. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
Finally, if a PCRA petition is untimely, and the petitioner has not pled
and proven an exception, “neither this Court nor the [PCRA] court has
conviction motion or petition may be treated as a PCRA petition regardless of the title of the document filed).
-4- J-S32020-25
jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the
legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v.
Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
Here, Garcia’s judgment of sentence became final on July 9, 2012,
ninety days after our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of
appeal and the time for filing a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); U.S. Sup.Ct. R. 13.1.
Therefore, Garcia had until July 9, 2013 to file a timely petition. Because
Garcia filed the petition at issue over ten years later, it is patently untimely
unless he has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that one of the
enumerated exceptions applies. See Hernandez, supra.
Garcia has failed to plead let alone prove an exception to the PCRA’s
time bar. Moreover, although illegal sentencing issues cannot be waived, they
still must be presented in a timely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Miller,
102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014). Thus, even when a sentence is illegal,
if a petitioner does not challenge it in a timely fashion, the illegal sentence
stands. Because Garcia’s petition was untimely, this Court lacks jurisdiction
to consider its merits. Derrickson, supra; see also Commonwealth v.
Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Pa. 2005) (involving court’s refusal to
consider PCRA claim when the petitioner failed to acknowledge that the
petition was untimely, “much less attempt to raise one of the enumerated
-5- J-S32020-25
exceptions to the time bar”). We therefore affirm the PCRA court’s order
dismissing Garcia’s third petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 11/12/2025
-6-