Com. v. Bailey, S.
677 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Steven Mykel Bailey was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and related offenses in 2005 and sentenced to life; direct appeals were exhausted by 2008.
- Bailey filed multiple PCRA petitions; the third petition at issue was filed on June 10, 2015, raising newly discovered-witness evidence.
- Bailey presented an affidavit and testimony from Avid Nalls, who said he saw the victim reach for a gun immediately before the shooting and told Bailey about it in April 2015.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, found Nalls not credible, and denied relief; Bailey appealed the denial.
- The Superior Court first addressed timeliness: Bailey’s judgment was final in March 2008, so the 2015 PCRA filing was untimely unless an exception applied; the court accepted Bailey’s 9545(b)(ii) showing because he filed within 60 days of learning of Nalls’s statement.
- On the merits, the court held Nalls’s testimony would be cumulative of Bailey’s own testimony and would not likely compel a different verdict or require a self-defense instruction, so PCRA relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Bailey: Petition timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(ii) because Nalls’s affidavit was newly discovered and Bailey filed within 60 days of learning of it | Commonwealth: Petition untimely unless an exception applied | Held: 9545(b)(ii) exception satisfied — Bailey filed within 60 days of learning Nalls’s statement, so merits considered |
| Adequacy of newly discovered evidence | Bailey: Nalls’s testimony that victim reached for a gun is new, noncumulative, and would support self-defense, likely changing the verdict | Commonwealth: Nalls’s testimony is cumulative of Bailey’s own account and would not compel a different result or require a justification instruction | Held: Nalls’s evidence is cumulative and would not likely produce a different verdict; no relief granted |
| Necessity of self-defense instruction | Bailey: Nalls’s account would bolster a self-defense claim and mandate jury instruction on justification | Commonwealth: Even with Nalls’s testimony, facts (Bailey sought out victim, could have retreated) preclude entitlement to justification instruction | Held: Court need not have given a justification instruction; elements of self-defense not met |
| Credibility of after-discovered witness | Bailey: Nalls is a credible eyewitness whose affidavit supports Bailey’s theory | Commonwealth: PCRA court is entitled to credibility findings rejecting Nalls | Held: PCRA court’s adverse credibility finding is supported by the record and binding on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness and jurisdictional limits on PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (no equitable exceptions to PCRA time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (finality and one-year filing rule under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (exceptions to time bar must be pled in the petition)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard of appellate review for PCRA relief)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (scope of review limited to record and findings below)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 82 A.3d 998 (Pa. 2013) (credibility determinations by PCRA court are binding if supported by the record)
- Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (elements for newly discovered evidence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (elements and jury-charge standards for self-defense)