Com. v. Alexander, K.
Com. v. Alexander, K. No. 2216 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Keith Alexander was convicted after a second jury trial on April 1, 2005, of attempted murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy, and related firearms offenses; sentenced May 20, 2005 to 26½ to 56 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed by this Court March 20, 2007; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal October 24, 2007; judgment of sentence became final January 22, 2008 (expiration of certiorari period).
- Alexander filed multiple PCRA petitions; the present (third) pro se PCRA petition was filed October 22, 2015, asserting Brady claims based on allegedly withheld police materials and eyewitness statements.
- Trial counsel had received the contested materials (detective Puente located and turned over the file between mistrial and the second trial) and referenced/discussed the evidence at the second trial.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition untimely and that Alexander did not meet statutory exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 PCRA petition is timely | Alexander: Brady evidence was withheld, so petition should be excused from the time-bar under governmental interference | Commonwealth: Petition filed over seven years after finality, untimely; evidence was provided to trial counsel before second trial | Petition is untimely; governmental-interference exception not satisfied because counsel received the materials before trial |
| Whether the "new facts" exception applies | Alexander: Withheld eyewitness statement exonerates him and was newly discovered | Commonwealth: The evidence was known at trial and thus not new; 60-day filing requirement not met | New-facts exception fails because facts were known at trial; 60-day rule not satisfied |
| Whether ineffective assistance of trial counsel can excuse untimeliness | Alexander: (argues unpreserved ineffectiveness linked to evidence) | Commonwealth: Ineffectiveness generally does not constitute a time-bar exception | Court reiterated that ineffective-assistance claims do not generally excuse PCRA time limits |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to hear the petition | Alexander: requests review on merits via exceptions | Commonwealth: Because petition is time-barred and no exception applies, court lacks jurisdiction | Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition and affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 148 A.3d 849 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (governmental-interference exception requires that information could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffectiveness of counsel generally does not constitute an exception to PCRA time requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Alexander, 928 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2007) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)