determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 Pa. 127, 995 A.2d 1143 (2010). The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. Id. Before addressing the issues presented on appeal, we must determine whether Appellant’s instant PCRA petition was timely filed. Our Supreme Court has stressed that “[t]he PCRA’s timeliness requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed; courts may not address the merits of the issues raised in a petition if it is not timely filed.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219, 227, 941 A.2d 1263, 1267-68 (2008) (citation omitted). See Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1079 (Pa.Super.2010) (<HOLDING>). It is well settled that “[a]ny and all PCRA
holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that because an untimely pcra petition was premised on claims that were cognizable under the pcra the statutory writ of habeas corpus was unavailable holding that the constitutional nature of the violations alleged in a pcra petition has no effect on the application of the pcra jurisdictional time bar holding no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely pcra petition