to the [appellant] and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Id., § 9545(b)(1)(h). Specifically, appellant contends he did not know about the alleged conflict of interest until just prior to filing his third PCRA petition; however, the PCRA court reviewed the evidence and found appellant had not presented evidence warranting application of this exception. This Court has found matters of public record are not unknown. See Commonwealth v. Chester, 586 Pa. 468, 895 A.2d 520, 523 (2006) (matters of public record cannot be said to have been “unknown”) (citing Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468, 817 A.2d 473, 476 (2003); Commonwealth v. Lark, 560 Pa. 487, 746 A.2d 585, 588 n. 4 (2000)); see also Commonwealth v. Lopez, 51 A.3d 195, 196 (Pa. 2012) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Trial counsel represented Barshinger, in
recognizing exception recognizing such an exception holding nondiscovery of publicly available information could not predicate timeliness exception holding that dismissal is not appropriate when that step could jeopardize the timeliness of a collateral attack recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception