QUESTION I:
ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR UNTIMELY
FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, BASED ON PETITIONER'S ADMITTED
CLERICAL ERROR OF MISDATING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AS ONE
DAY LATE, AND THEREBY USING PETITIONER'S CLERICAL ERROR AS
A BASIS TO REJECT/NEGATE REASONABLY VERIFIABLE PROOF
PRESENTED THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS "ACTUALLY" FILED
ON THE LAST DAY OF TIMELINESS, PURSUANT TO THE "PRISONER
MAILBOX RULE", HOUSTON V. LACK AND IT'S PROGENY?WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA APPELLATE COURT

QUESTION II: WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA APPELLATE COURT
ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR UNTIMELY FILING
OF NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHOUT REMANDING FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON THE REASONABLY VERIFIABLE PROOF PRESENTED OF
TIMELY FILING BY "PRISONER MAILBOX RULE", HOUSTON V. LACK
AND ITS PROGENY?

Whether the Pennsylvania appellate court erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for untimely filing of notice of appeal