under Section 5103. See id. There is nothing on the docket or in the certified record to indicate that Appellant’s counsel promptly filed a certified transcript of the final judgment of the federal court and, at the same time, a certified copy of the pleadings from the federal action. Id. ¶ 28 Further, we have not been provided with, or independently located, any case law to support the proposition that the Pennsylvania Transfer Statute can be used to circumvent the time limitations of the PCRA, As Fahy states, the PCRA does not permit the tolling of time limitations except as provided in the PCRA statute. See Fahy, supra (limiting doctrine of equitable tolling only to that provided in Section 9545(b)(1)(i) — (iii)). See also Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa.Super.2000) (<HOLDING>). , As Fahy also states, tolling undermines the
holding no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely pcra petition holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding untimely petition for allowance of appeal with pennsylvania supreme court which later denied petition does not operate to circumvent time restrictions of pcra by altering date on which appellants sentence became final holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment  of conviction became final holding that a pcra petitioner may not raise new claims by merely supplementing a pending pcra petition without court authorization because to do so would wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the pcra