Com. v. Melendez-Bonilla, J.

J-S73028-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JAYSON MELENDEZ-BONILLA :
:
Appellant : No. 1304 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 17, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-06-CR-0003537-2011
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 15, 2020
Jayson Melendez-Bonilla appeals pro se from the trial court’s order
dismissing, as untimely, his second petition filed pursuant to the Post-
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9514-9546. We affirm.
Following a jury trial, Melendez-Bonilla was found guilty of four counts
each of assault of a law enforcement officer, aggravated assault, simple
assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and one count each
of criminal attempt to commit homicide, possession of a firearm prohibited,
and firearms not to be carried without a license. The charges arose as a result
of Melendez-Bonilla firing four shots from a .32 caliber revolver at Reading
police officers in June 2011. Melendez-Bonilla was sentenced on February 2,
2012, to an aggregate term of 80 to 160 years’ incarceration. On March 21,
2013, our Court affirmed Melendez-Bonilla’s judgment of sentence. On
J-S73028-19
November 7, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Melendez-
Bonilla’s petition for allowance of appeal.
On January 31, 2014, Melendez-Bonilla filed a pro se PCRA petition.
Counsel was appointed and filed a no-merit letter pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) and
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988). Melendez-Bonilla filed
an amendment and addendum to his petition on May 20, 2015. The court
granted counsel’s petition to withdraw and, on May 29, 2015, denied
Melendez-Bonilla’s PCRA petition. Melendez-Bonilla filed a collateral appeal
and our Court affirmed the dismissal of his petition. On June 20, 2019,
Melendez-Bonilla filed the instant PCRA petition, his second. On May 22, 2019,
the trial court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Melendez-
Bonilla’s petition; Melendez-Bonilla responded to the notice, raising
substantially the same issues raised in his petition. On July 16, 2019, the trial
court dismissed the petition. Melendez-Bonilla filed a timely pro se notice of
appeal.
On appeal, Melendez-Bonilla argues that the trial court improperly
dismissed his PCRA petition where the court “failed to recognize FRAUD ON
THE COURT, which is an issue raised in [his] PCRA [petition] and ([t]he
exceptions to the timeliness requirement), (i), (ii), and (iii).” Appellant’s Brief,
at 6. Melendez-Bonilla also references the recent 2018 amendment to 42
-2-
J-S73028-19
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2)1 (amended on October 24, 2018, effective in 60 days
(Dec. 24, 2018)), that extended the time for filing a petition raising an
exception from sixty days of the date the claim could have been presented, to
one year.
Instantly, Melendez-Bonilla’s judgment of sentence became final on
February 7, 2014, when the time expired for him to file a petition for certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 (b)(3); Sup.
Ct. R. 13. Thus, he had until February 7, 2015, to file a timely PCRA petition.
Id. at § 9545(b)(1). The instant petition was not filed June 20, 2019, more
than four years later and, thus, is patently untimely. Unless Melendez-Bonilla
can plead and prove a section 9545(b)(1) exception to the PCRA time bar, the
trial court had no jurisdiction to consider his petition. See Commonwealth
v. Williams, 105 A.3d 1234, 1239 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA’s time restrictions are
jurisdictional in nature).
Despite his legal arguments and reference to section 9545(b)(2)’s
amendment, Melendez-Bonilla cannot be saved from the fact that his petition
was filed untimely and that he has neither pled nor proven an exception to
____________________________________________
1 The amendment applies to claims arising on December 24, 2017, or
thereafter. See Act 2018, Oct. 24, P.L. 894, No. 146, § 3.
-3-
J-S73028-19
the PCRA time bar.2 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Thus, we affirm the
trial court’s order dismissing Melendez-Bonilla’s petition as untimely filed.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/15/2020
____________________________________________
2 Melendez-Bonilla’s arguments involve the sufficiency of the evidence,
prosecutorial misconduct, and counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness for failing to
file a motion in limine to strike a police officer’s testimony from trial. None of
these claims would even fall within the ambit of an exception.
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A,3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (under PCRA,
couching post-conviction issues in terms of ineffectiveness of counsel cannot
save untimely filed PCRA petition that does not fall into any exceptions to
PCRA's jurisdictional time bar).
-4-