Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849

Police executed a search warrant at Quilie Zeigler’s home (April 3, 2012) and seized oxycodone, hydrocodone, cocaine, marijuana, paraphernalia, and firearms.
On December 17, 2013, Zeigler entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of PWID, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of persons not to possess firearms; court imposed agreed aggregate sentence of 5–10 years. Zeigler did not file a direct appeal.
Zeigler filed a timely first PCRA petition (Aug. 6, 2014) asserting plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion; appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter, and the petition was denied (Oct. 28, 2014). Zeigler did not appeal.
Zeigler filed a second PCRA petition (Mar. 23, 2015) raising different ineffective-assistance claims; counsel again filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter, and the petition was denied (Aug. 3, 2015). Zeigler did not appeal.
Zeigler filed a third PCRA petition pro se (Aug. 28, 2015) claiming plea counsel failed to file a requested direct appeal and seeking nunc pro tunc reinstatement of appeal rights; the PCRA court denied relief (Sept. 29, 2015), and Zeigler timely appealed to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court evaluated whether the third petition was procedurally proper (Lark rule) and whether it was timely under the PCRA one-year jurisdictional time bar; it found the petition untimely and affirmed denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a requested direct appeal and whether PCRA counsel erred by not raising that ineffectiveness	Zeigler: counsel failed to file an appeal he requested; PCRA counsel failed to raise that ineffectiveness	Commonwealth: the petition is untimely under §9545(b)(1); Zeigler did not invoke or plead a timeliness exception	Court: Petition was filed more than one year after judgment became final and no statutory timeliness exception was pleaded; claim is jurisdictionally barred, so denial affirmed

Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA court may not entertain a new petition while an appeal of a prior petition is pending)
Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2012) (clarifies Lark applies only when an appeal is pending)
Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (Lark inapplicable where no appeal is pending)
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions absent a §9545 exception)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural framework for counsel withdrawal and no-merit letter)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (companion authority on no-merit letter procedure)