Com. v. Fisher, T., Com. v. Fisher, T. No. 2520 EDA 2016

Terrence Fisher was convicted after a bench trial and received multiple sentences and probation revocations between 2005–2016 in Philadelphia County.
Fisher’s direct appeals and post-sentencing history include: an affirmed 2008 appeal, a 2009 revocation and resentencing (appeal reinstated nunc pro tunc and affirmed 2011), a 2012 revocation and 18–36 month sentence (appeal later quashed as untimely), and a 2013 DUI-based probation violation leading to 2016 proceedings.
Fisher filed a PCRA petition on December 23, 2013 (a second/serial petition), which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely on July 11, 2016 after appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and sought to withdraw.
The PCRA court ordered Fisher to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement; Fisher filed it 6 days late and did not prove timely mailing under the prisoner-mailbox rule.
On appeal Fisher argued (among other things) trial/Appellate counsel ineffectiveness for not filing a timely appeal, a vacated Montgomery County sentence that he claimed affected his Philadelphia case, and other sentencing and governmental obstruction claims.
The Superior Court held it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits because Fisher’s PCRA petition was untimely and he failed to prove any statutory timeliness exception; his late Rule 1925(b) statement also waived most issues except non-waivable legality-of-sentence claims (which he failed to preserve timely under the PCRA).

Issue	Fisher's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Timeliness of PCRA petition	Fisher argued merits (e.g., vacated Montco sentence) and counsel failures justified relief	Petition filed Dec 23, 2013, after judgment became final Oct 17, 2012; no timely statutory exception shown	PCRA untimely; Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to review merits
Ineffective assistance of direct-appeal counsel	Counsel (public defender) failed to file timely appeal after 9/17/2012 VOP; Fisher claimed governmental obstruction	Ineffective-assistance allegations do not satisfy PCRA timeliness; defense counsel is not a “government official” under §9545(b)(4)	Claim does not excuse untimeliness; exception inapplicable
After-discovered evidence (vacated Montco sentence)	Fisher relied on Dec 27, 2012 Braxton order vacating a Montco sentence as newly discovered evidence affecting his PCRA	Court: order is from an unrelated Montgomery County case; Fisher waited ~1 year to raise it and did not meet 60-day requirement	After-discovered evidence exception not established
Failure to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement	Fisher filed 1925(b) statement 6 days late; offered no mailbox proof	Court enforces Rule 1925(b) waiver rules; late filing waives claims except non-waivable legality issues	Statement deemed untimely; all issues waived except non-waivable sentencing legality (which Fisher did not properly preserve under PCRA)

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures governing counsel’s no‑merit submissions)
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (permits counsel to file no‑merit letter and withdraw under appointed-counsel PCRA practice)
Crawford v. Commonwealth, 17 A.3d 1279 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prisoner-mailbox rule for filing by inmates)
Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits implicate jurisdiction and cannot be ignored)
Fahy v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality-of-sentence claims are cognizable under the PCRA but remain subject to timeliness rules)
Yarris v. Commonwealth, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (§9545(b)(4) excludes defense counsel from definition of "government officials" for timeliness exception)
Robinson v. Commonwealth, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (rejecting the "extension theory" that an untimely serial petition can be treated as an extension of a prior timely petition)