Appeal from the PCRA Order December 27, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0201681-1998.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., DONOHUE, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.[*]
Appellant, Kenyatta Turpin, appeals pro se from the order dismissing his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § § 9541-9546, as untimely. We affirm.
On June 24, 1999, a jury convicted Appellant of attempted murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy, possession of an instrument of a crime, and carrying a firearm without a license.  His conviction stemmed from an incident on January 15, 1998, outside of a store, during which Appellant fired several shots at the victim, Wayman Scott, striking him once in the right side. On November 20, 2000, the court sentenced Appellant to a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years' incarceration, followed by seven years' probation. Appellant filed a direct appeal, and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. ( See Commonwealth v. Turpin, 816 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. 2002) (unpublished memorandum)). Appellant did not timely seek allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court.
On August 12, 2003, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition on June 1, 2004. Following a hearing, the PCRA court reinstated Appellant's right to seek allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court nunc pro tunc . Our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on May 25, 2005. ( See Commonwealth v. Turpin, 583 Pa. 672, 876 A.2d 395 (Pa. 2005)).
On April 25, 2006, Appellant filed a second pro se PCRA petition. Appointed counsel filed an amended petition, which the PCRA court dismissed on January 3, 2008. This Court affirmed the PCRA court's order on March 31, 2009, and our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal on September 11, 2009. ( See Commonwealth v. Turpin , 974 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 602 Pa. 666, 980 A.2d 608 (Pa. 2009)).
On July 10, 2012, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA petition. On November 21, 2012, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing. On December 27, 2012, the court entered its order dismissing Appellant's PCRA petition. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises the following two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused it's [sic] discretion and denied [Appellant] a fair trial by admitting into evidence the testimony of Tracy Skinner and Wayman Scott that [Appellant] was responsible for the theft of Tracy Skinner's car, where [Appellant] was not arrested for or charged with this unrelated prior bad act[?]
2. Did the trial court error [sic] in admitting insufficient evidence do [sic] to the unlawful arrest by the P.H.A. Officers[?]
(Appellant's Brief, at unnumbered page 6).
Our standard of review for an order denying PCRA relief ...