Com. v. Huber, J.

Opinion

J-S26041-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAMES DAVID HUBER : : Appellant : No. 47 MDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 14, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002794-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: AUGUST 12, 2024

James David Huber appeals pro se from the order denying his untimely

second petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows: On December

16, 2019, Huber entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of sexual abuse

of children, one count of unlawful contact with a minor, and two counts of

corruption of minors. That same day, the trial court sentenced Huber to an

aggregate term of five to ten years of imprisonment, followed by a fourteen-

year probationary term. Huber did not file an appeal.

On December 14, 2020, Huber filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, and

the PCRA court appointed counsel. On January 3, 2022, PCRA counsel filed a

motion to withdraw and no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v.

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d J-S26041-24

213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On February 8, 2022, the PCRA court

granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of

its intent to dismiss Huber’s petition without a hearing. Huber filed a pro se

response. By order entered April 5, 2022, the PCRA court dismissed the

petition as meritless. Huber appealed. On September 9, 2022, this Court

affirmed the PCRA court’s order denying Huber post-conviction relief.

Commonwealth v. Huber, 285 A.3d 918 (Pa. Super. 2022) (non-

precedential decision).

On July 26, 2023, Huber filed the pro se PCRA petition at issue, his

second. On November 14, 2023, the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of

its intent to dismiss this petition because it was untimely filed and Huber did

not raise any exception to the PCRA’s time bar. Huber filed a response. By

order entered December 14, 2023, the court denied the PCRA petition. This

appeal followed. Both Huber and the PCRA court have complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925. Huber raises nine substantive issues. Before addressing these claims,

we must first determine whether Huber’s second PCRA petition was timely

filed.

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.

-2- J-S26041-24

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 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, Huber’s judgment of sentence became final on January 15, 2020,

thirty days after the time for filing a direct appeal expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9545(b)(3). Therefore, Huber had until January 14, 2021, to file a timely

petition. Because Huber filed the petition at issue in April 2023, it is untimely

-3- J-S26041-24

unless he has satisfied his burden of pleading and proving that one of the

enumerated exceptions applies. See Hernandez, supra.

The PCRA court found that Huber did not raise an exception to the

PCRA’s time bar in his petition. Our review of the petition confirms this

conclusion. Thus, although Huber claims in his brief that he has satisfied all

three exceptions, see Huber’s Brief at 19, he inappropriately raises the claim

for the first time on appeal. Burton, supra. Because Huber’s petition was

untimely, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.

Derrickson, supra. We therefore affirm the PCRA court’s order denying

Huber post-conviction relief.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/12/2024

-4-