Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 14, 2013, In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-39-CR-0002510-2003.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.
Appellant, Jeremy Fontanez, appeals from the order entered January 14, 2013, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On July 1, 2004, Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to first-degree murder, robbery, attempted criminal homicide, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, and conspiracy to commit robbery, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and an aggregate consecutive sentence of twenty-four to forty-eight years of incarceration. Appellant did not file an appeal.
More than two and one-half years later, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in the Commonwealth Court, which transferred the appeal to this Court on July 2, 2008. The appeal was docketed at 2411 EDA 2008. In the meantime, Appellant filed a second pro se notice of appeal docketed at 979 EDA 2007, which we quashed on January 24, 2008. Pursuant to the Commonwealth's motion to quash the first appeal, this Court quashed the first appeal at 2411 EDA 2008 as untimely. Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal on January 7, 2009, which was denied on May 27, 2009. Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 972 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2009).
On May 4, 2010, Appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied on November 24, 2010. Fontanez v. Holt, F.Supp., 2010 WL 4814694, (E.D. Pa. 2010). Appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was denied on November 28, 2011, his petition for reargument en banc was denied on January 4, 2012, and a petition for writ of certiorari was denied on October 1, 2012. Fontanez v. Holt, U.S., 133 S.Ct. 324 (2012).
Appellant filed a pro se petition for PCRA relief on October 23, 2012, and newly appointed counsel filed an amended petition on December 4, 2012. The PCRA court determined that the petition was untimely and that Appellant failed to prove any exception to the time bar of the statute; thus, it denied the petition.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the lower court acted properly in denying [Appellant's] petition for post conviction collateral relief, without hearing or testimony, when [Appellant] alleges an arguable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based upon recent holdings of United States Supreme Court?
Appellant's Brief at 7.
Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is whether the record supports the PCRA court's determination, and whether the PCRA court's determination is free of legal error. The PCRA court's findings will not be disturbed unless ...