J-S03014-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FRAZIER CISCO GRACE :
:
Appellant : No. 680 WDA 2020
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 16, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0015667-2005
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2021
Frazier Cisco Grace (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the Order
dismissing his eleventh Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Because Appellant has failed to satisfy
any of the timeliness exceptions provided in Section 9545(b)(1), this Court is
without jurisdiction to review the merits of this Appeal. We, thus, affirm.
On February 14, 2007, a jury found Appellant guilty of Rape,
Kidnapping, and related offenses after a trial in which Appellant represented
himself. On May 14, 2007, the court sentenced Appellant, then represented
by counsel, to an aggregate term of 234 to 468 months’ incarceration.
Appellant filed a pro se Post-Sentence Motion on June 7, 2007, requesting the
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03014-21
appointment of appellate counsel. The court appointed counsel on July 2,
2007.
The trial court subsequently reinstated Appellant’s appellate rights nunc
pro tunc, and Appellant filed a direct appeal. This Court affirmed the Judgment
of Sentence and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on May 12,
2012. See Commonwealth v. Frazier Cisco Grace, No. 1079 WDA 2010
(Pa. Super. filed June 10, 2011), appeal denied,
46 A.3d 715
(Pa. 2012)
(table). Appellant did not seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. His
Judgment of Sentence, thus, became final on August 11, 2012. See 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(3); see also U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13.
Appellant thereafter filed ten PCRA Petitions, none of which garnered
relief. Appellant filed the instant pro se Petition on February 20, 2020,
asserting, inter alia, that the trial court failed to appoint counsel to file a post-
sentence motion and that subsequently appointed counsel failed to raise this
failure. The PCRA court filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss without a hearing
on February 27, 2020, to which Appellant responded on March 25, 2020. The
PCRA dismissed the Petition on June 16, 2020.
Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. The PCRA court filed an
Opinion in support of its Order on August 27, 2020. The court did not order
Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement.
Appellant presents four issues for our review asserting alleged failures
of the trial court that occurred in 2007 and the ineffective assistance of four
appointed post-sentence counsel between the years 2007 and 2010. See
-2-
J-S03014-21
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5. He contends the court’s failures comprise
governmental interference that resulted in prejudice to him.
Before we may address the issues raised in a PCRA Petition, we must
determine whether we have jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Bennett,
, 1267 (Pa. 2007). The timeliness of a PCRA Petition implicates our courts’ jurisdiction.
Id. Under the PCRA,
any petition for relief, including
second and subsequent petitions, must be filed within one year of the date on
which the judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
Appellant’s Petition, filed 8 years after his Judgment of Sentence became final,
is patently untimely.
Courts may review petitions filed outside of the one-year window,
however, if the petitioner pleads and proves one of the timeliness exceptions
provided in Section 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Any petition invoking the timeliness
exceptions must be filed within one year of the date the claim could have been
presented. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not serve as a PCRA
timeliness exception. Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor,
,
785 (Pa. 2000).
Appellant asserts that his claims fell within the PCRA’s governmental
interference exception. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i). To establish jurisdiction
under this exception, a petitioner must plead and prove that his “failure to
raise the claim was the result of interference by government officials with the
presentation of the claim.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i).
-3-
J-S03014-21
Here, Appellant asserts, inter alia, that the court committed
governmental interference in 2007 “when they denied counsel to file post-
sentence motions per Rule 720,” thus, depriving him of his right to counsel at
a critical stage. Appellant’s Br. at 7. Appellant does not inform us of what
interference by government officials prevented him from presenting this claim
in 2007 or at any other time before February 2020. Moreover, since Appellant
was aware of this alleged denial of counsel in 2007, his assertion of the claim
13 years later does not satisfy Section 9545(b)(2)’s requirement that it be
filed within one year of the date when it could be presented. 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(2).1
Since Appellant failed to plead and prove a valid exception to the PCRA’s
timeliness requirements, Appellant’s petition is time-barred. Thus, this Court,
like the PCRA court, is without jurisdiction to offer Appellant any form of relief.
We affirm the Order dismissing Appellant’s Petition without a hearing.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/17/2021
____________________________________________
1The PCRA court concluded that Appellant’s argument was meritless because
“his Post-Sentence Motion under Pa.R.Crim. 720 was addressed when the
Petitioner’s appellate rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc on June 16, 2010.”
PCRA Ct. Op., dated Aug. 27, 2020, at 6.
-4-
