Appeal from the Order May 31, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0004025-2002
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
Appellant, Ricardo Morales-Vasquez, appeals pro se from the May 31, 2013 order dismissing his third petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history, as gleaned from the certified record, follow. On April 11, 2003, following an eight-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and two counts of aggravated assault. On May 16, 2003, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and a consecutive 10 to 20 years' imprisonment for aggravated assault. On May 11, 2004, this Court affirmed Appellant's judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Morales-Vasquez, 855 A.2d 135 (Pa. Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 860 A.2d 123 (Pa. 2004). Subsequently, on October 5, 2004, our Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal. Id.
On October 6, 2005, Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed and an amended PCRA petition was filed. A hearing was held, and on June 29, 2007, Appellant's PCRA petition was denied. Appellant did not file an appeal.
On February 9, 2009, Appellant filed a second pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was again appointed, an amended PCRA petition was filed, and on March 9, 2010, Appellant's second PCRA petition was dismissed as untimely. On March 22, 2010, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On October 28, 2010, this Court affirmed the PCRA court's dismissal of Appellant's second PCRA petition as untimely. Commonwealth v. Morales-Vasquez, 15 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum).
On August 29, 2012, Appellant filed his third pro se PCRA petition asserting a newly recognized constitutional right pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). Appellant's Pro Se PCRA Petition, 8/29/12, at ¶¶ 1-3. On December 7, 2012, the PCRA court filed a notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant's appeal without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 907. Appellant did not file a reply. Accordingly on May 31, 2013, the PCRA court dismissed
Appellant's petition as untimely. The same day, Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.
A. Did the [PCRA] court err in denying Appellant's petition claiming that motion was filed beyond the time period set by statute, and that the [PCRA c]ourt lack[ed] jurisdiction to consider any of the claims raised. Even though evidence shows that the petition was submitted under 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) and met the 60 days requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(2)?
B. Did the [PCRA] court commit an error of law and deny Appellant his due process rights in ...