Description: Reading, Pennsylvania criminla defense lawyer represented the Dendant charged with robbery, possessing instruments of crime, terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), and conspiracy to commit robbery.

On February 13, 2009, following a two-day trial, a jury found Cook guilty of robbery, possessing instruments of crime, terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), and conspiracy to commit robbery. On February 19, 2009, the trial court sentenced Cook to an aggregate term of thirteen to fifty-five years in prison.[2] On December 15, 2009, this Court affirmed Cook's convictions, but vacated his judgment of sentence because his sentence for REAP exceeded the statutory maximum, and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Cook, 682 MDA 2009, at 4-8 (Pa. Super. Dec. 15, 2009) (non-precedential decision). On April 28, 2010, the trial court resentenced Cook to thirteen to fifty-three years in prison.

* * *

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. POST CONVICTION RELIEF ACT (PCRA). The appellant's petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act was dismissed as untimely, and the court found no exception applicable to the statutory time bar, thus lacking jurisdiction to hear the merits.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPELLATE REVIEW. The appellant contested the PCRA court's refusal to recuse itself and its handling of alleged governmental interference claims, but the court firmly ruled that the petition's untimeliness barred any substantive review of these claims.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JURISDICTION AND TIMELINESS. The case illustrates the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the PCRA's timeliness requirement, emphasizing that petitions filed outside the stipulated timeframe without valid exceptions cannot be entertained.

CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING AND LEGALITY. The appellant's challenge to the legality of his sentence, framed as a non-waivable claim, was dismissed due to failure to meet the PCRA's timeliness and exception requirements.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: