Com. v. Murray, B (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S31036-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. BRUCE MURRAY, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 3039 EDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on October 4, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-1111091-1982 BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Bruce Murray FILED JUNE 19, 2014 appeals, pro se, from the Order dismissing his third Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act . See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the relevant procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 11/7/13, at 1-2 (unnumbered).1 The PCRA c Petition is untimely, and that he did not properly invoke any exceptions to 1 did not have jurisdiction to consider instant PCRA Petitio that the court the . J-S31036-14 the timeliness requirement of the PCRA.2 See id. at 2-6 (unnumbered). Upon our review of the record, we agree and adopt the sound reasoning of the PCRA court for the purpose of this appeal. See id. Thus, the PCRA Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/19/2014 2 We note that Murray raised an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not a recognized exception to the timeliness requirements of the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 11 assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdiction[al] timeliness -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.