Com. v. Pete, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: 1257 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S11027-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANTHONY JIMEE PETE : : Appellant : No. 1257 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered September 26, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0001994-2013

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED: April 21, 2025

Appellant, Anthony Jimee Pete, appeals pro se from the order entered

in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, which denied as untimely his

serial petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

September 17, 2014, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to statutory

sexual assault. On January 15, 2015, the court held a sentencing hearing

where Appellant sought to withdraw his plea; however, the court denied the

request after Appellant admitted that he had sex with the minor victim when

he was 11 years older. On March 16, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant in

accordance with his plea agreement to 42 to 144 months’ imprisonment. This

Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on October 4, 2017. See

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S11027-25

Commonwealth v. Pete, No. 1223 WDA 2016 (Pa.Super. filed Oct. 4, 2017)

(unpublished memorandum). Subsequently, Appellant engaged in the

unsuccessful litigation of serial post-conviction petitions.

Appellant filed the instant serial PCRA petition, styled as a “petition to

open and vacate illegal sentence,” on September 23, 2024.2 On September

26, 2024, the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely.3 On October 10,

2024, Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal. That same day, the

court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors

complained of on appeal, and he timely complied on October 21, 2024.

Preliminarily, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional

prerequisite. Zeigler, supra at 853. A PCRA petition shall be filed within one

year of the date the underlying judgment of sentence becomes final. 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence is deemed 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

2 The PCRA court properly treated Appellant’s filing styled as a “petition to open and vacate an illegal sentence” under the confines of the PCRA. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa.Super. 2013) (observing that General Assembly enacted PCRA to be sole means of achieving post-conviction relief; unless PCRA cannot provide remedy, it subsumes writ of habeas corpus). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542. Challenges to the legality of a sentence are cognizable under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Prinkey, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 277 A.3d 554, 568 (2022).

3 Although it appears that the court did not issue Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, such error is not reversible here, where the record is clear that the current petition is time-barred. See Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849, 851 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2016).

-2- J-S11027-25

expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The

statutory exceptions to the PCRA time-bar allow for very limited circumstances

under which the late filing of a petition will be excused; a petitioner asserting

a timeliness exception must also file the petition within the required statutory

window. 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9545(b)(1-2). These exceptions are: “(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)). As well, “a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the

merits.” Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313, 331, 737 A.2d 214, 223

(1999).

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on November

3, 2017, at the expiration of his time to seek allowance of appeal with the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P.

1113(a). Thus, Appellant had one year from that date to timely file a PCRA

petition challenging his original judgment of sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9545(b)(1). Appellant’s current PCRA petition, filed September 23, 2024, is

facially untimely. Appellant fails to invoke or develop an argument concerning

any exception to the PCRA time-bar on appeal. Under these circumstances,

Appellant’s current prayer for relief remains time-barred and the PCRA court

did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition on the merits. See Zeigler,

supra. See also Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 468

-3- J-S11027-25

(Pa.Super. 2007) (stating: “Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the

legal authority to address the substantive claims”) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

DATE: 04/21/2025

-4-