J-S56012-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CRAIG WAYNE RODNEY Appellant No. 358 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 11, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0002927-2009

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 07, 2014 Appellant, Craig Wayne Rodney, appeals pro se from the order entered February 11, 2014, by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, (PCRA) petition. We affirm.

On February 3, 2010, Rodney entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of indecent assault on a person less than 13 years of age, in exchange for which all other pending charges were nolle prossed. On May 13, 2010, the trial court sentenced Rodney to two and one- incarceration. Rodney filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was denied on May 20, 2010. Rodney did not file a direct appeal. ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. §§ 9541-9546 J-S56012-14

On January 3, 2013, Rodney filed a pro se Motion to Reinstate PCRA Rights. Kurt Lynott, Esquire, was appointed to represent Rodney.

Appointed counsel subsequently filed a Petition to Withdraw and a Turner/Finley no-merit letter. On January 14, 2014, the PCRA court filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice of Intent untimely and granted counsel permission to withdraw representation. On

pro se appeal followed.

Rodney raises four issues on appeal. Preliminarily, we note that on March 4, 2014, the PCRA court directed Rodney file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal within 21 days of the

Rule 19 [i]ssues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this

resulted in waiver2 of all issues raised on appeal.3 ____________________________________________

representation and Rodney has elected to proceed with this appeal pro se, he cannot benefit from the provision in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3), permitting an appellate court to remand where failure to file a concise statement is attributed to per se ineffective assistance of counsel.

Even if we had not found the claims waived, Rodney would not be entitled to relief. His PCRA petition was patently untimely, see 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2- J-S56012-14

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/7/2014

_______________________ (Footnote Continued) § 9545(b)(1), and he fails to properly plead any exception to the time bar.

See 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). His first claim is of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 It is well settled that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdictional timeliness sentences, he attempts to set forth the after-discovered evidence exception, see 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), but fails to plead and prove that he filed his petition within 60 days when he discovered that the medical his third claim, he argues that the police violated his Miranda rights. This claim does not come within any of the timeliness exceptions of the PCRA and, in fact, would have been found waived in a first, timely filed PCRA petition as it could have been raised on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Elliott, 80 A.3d 415, 427 (Pa. 2013). His fourth claim maintains that his sentence is illegal. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. Although legality of sentence is always subject to review within the PCRA, claims must claim.

-3-