The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell, M.J.
Richard E. Boyd, and inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette has presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he has been granted leave to prosecute in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow the petition will be dismissed as having been untimely filed. Additionally, a certificate of appealability will be denied as no viable grounds exist upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that there is a basis for appeal.
Richard E. Boyd is presently serving a twelve to twenty-six year sentence imposed following his conviction, by a jury, of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, sexual assault, statutory sexual assault and corrupting the morals of a minor at No. 55 of 2000 in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was imposed on March 2, 2001.*fn1
An appeal was taken to the Superior Court in which the issues presented for review were:
1. Whether [appellant] is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence?
2. Whether the prosecutor, in her closing remarks to the jury, made a remark that constitutes reversible error due to the fact that it formed in the minds of the jury such hostilities towards [appellant] that the jury was unable to weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict?
3. Whether the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was insufficient to find [appellant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call potential alibi witnesses and due to the fact that [appellant] testified at trial, which permitted the Commonwealth to introduce statements regarding his sexual history with the victim?*fn2 On March 11, 2003, the judgment of sentence was affirmed.*fn3 Leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied on November 6, 2003.*fn4
On March 10, 2004, Boyd filed a post-conviction petition.*fn5 That petition was denied and the denial was affirmed by the Superior Court on July 1, 2005.*fn6 On February 2, 2006, Boyd filed a second post-conviction petition which was dismissed as untimely on July 11, 2006.*fn7 An appeal was taken to the Superior Court which Court on May 2, 2007, affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on the grounds that it was not timely sought and did not meet any exception to the requirement of timely filing.*fn8 Leave to appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on September 6, 2007.*fn9 The instant petition was executed on September 20, 2007.
In the present petition, Boyd contends he is entitled to relief on the following grounds:
1. Insufficient evidence under Jackson; prosecutor's personal belief [expressed] in closing; ineffective counsel [resulting in] manifest injustice.
2. Speedy trial rights violated by State's rule 600; jury instructions improper on prompt complaint; illegal sentence.
3. PCRA #2 exhausted all claims presented [earlier] along with new facts of speedy trial cover up; new Blakey law.
4. Combined effect of violations during direct appeal, 1st and 2nd PCRA; no [Pennsylvania] savings ...