Com. v. Santini, G. ( 2016 )

J-S40018-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
GERMAN SANTINI
Appellant No. 3337 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 8, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1207631-2002
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2016
Appellant, German Santini, appeals pro se from the October 8, 2015
order dismissing, as untimely, his second petition for relief filed pursuant to
the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After
careful review, we affirm.
On February 8, 2005, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment, after a jury found him
guilty of two counts of robbery, as well as one count each of carrying
firearms without a license, carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia, theft
by unlawful taking, possession of an instrument of a crime, simple assault,
J-S40018-16
and criminal conspiracy.1 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, this Court
affirmed on January 16, 2007, and our Supreme Court denied allocatur on
July 6, 2007. Commonwealth v. Santini, 919 A.2d 976 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 927 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2007). As
Appellant did not seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme
Court, his judgment of sentence became final on October 4, 2007, when the
period for filing a certiorari petition expired. See generally 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(b)(3); U.S. S Ct. R. 13(1).2 Appellant filed the instant petition on
October 7, 2014; as a result, it was facially untimely. See generally 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1).
Appellant argues that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), announced a new
constitutional right that applies retroactively to cases where the judgment of
sentence has become final. Appellant’s Brief at 11-13. However, this Court
has held that Alleyne does not satisfy the new constitutional right exception
to the time-bar. See generally Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988,
994-995 (Pa. Super. 2014). In addition, Alleyne was decided on June 17,
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 6106, 6108, 3921, 907, 2701, and 903,
respectively.
2
Appellant filed his first PCRA petition on November 19, 2007 and the PCRA
court dismissed the same on December 6, 2010. This Court affirmed on
March 5, 2013, and our Supreme Court denied allocatur on August 26, 2013.
Commonwealth v. Santini, 69 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 74 A.3d 126 (Pa. 2013).
-2-
J-S40018-16
2013, and Appellant’s petition was filed on October 7, 2014, 477 days later,
in violation of the 60-day rule at Section 9545(b)(2). See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(b)(2) (stating that any petition invoking one of the three time-bar
exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have
been presented[]”). Therefore, Appellant’s PCRA petition was untimely filed
and no time-bar exception applied.3
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the PCRA court properly
dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely. Accordingly, the PCRA
court’s October 8, 2015 order is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2016
____________________________________________
3
Appellant also argues his PCRA petition can be treated as a habeas corpus
petition. Appellant’s Brief at 13-14. However, Alleyne issues pertain to the
legality of the sentence, which are cognizable under the PCRA. See
generally Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13, 15 (Pa. Super. 2014),
appeal denied, 121 A.3d 494 (Pa. 2015); Commonwealth v. Beck, 848
A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 2004); 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9542, 9543(a)(2)(vii).
-3-