Com. v. Boyd, W.
26 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- William R. Boyd was convicted by a jury of conspiracy, aggravated assault, and firearms offenses for two 1991 shootings and sentenced to 50–100 years in 1994.
- Direct appeals concluded in 1997; Boyd’s judgment of sentence became final April 16, 1997.
- Boyd filed multiple PCRA petitions (first through fifth); earlier petitions were dismissed as untimely or on other bases; some litigation included evidentiary hearings.
- In December 2015 Boyd filed his sixth (current) PCRA petition, alleging newly discovered evidence: an October 29, 2015 affidavit from victim Thomas Easley recanting his trial identification of Boyd.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely and meritless; Boyd appealed, arguing the Easley affidavit satisfies the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly discovered facts exception and warrants an evidentiary hearing.
- The Superior Court held the petition was untimely and that Boyd failed to meet the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) requirements because Easley’s alleged perjury was not a newly discovered fact and Boyd did not show due diligence in pursuing Easley after learning of related information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Boyd: petition filed within 60 days of learning Easley’s recantation; satisfies §9545(b)(1)(ii) newly discovered facts exception. | Commonwealth: judgment was final in 1997; petition filed in 2015 is untimely and the exception is not met. | Petition is untimely; Boyd did not meet the §9545(b)(1)(ii) threshold. |
| Whether Easley affidavit is a "new fact" | Boyd: Easley’s affidavit shows he perjured himself at trial, a fact unknown until 2015. | Commonwealth: Easley’s alleged perjury was previously knowable and tied to facts already known from trial testimony and earlier affidavits. | Easley’s recantation is a newly willing source for previously known facts, not a newly discovered fact. |
| Due diligence in discovering new facts | Boyd: filed within 60 days of receiving notice and affidavit; argues timely under the 60-day rule. | Commonwealth: Boyd failed to show he exercised due diligence—he had prior indications (e.g., Bush affidavit) and made no efforts to locate Easley earlier. | Boyd did not show he exercised due diligence in discovering Easley’s recantation. |
| Requirement for evidentiary hearing | Boyd: affidavit created genuine issues of material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing. | Commonwealth: threshold jurisdictional defects (timeliness, new-fact/diligence) preclude a merits hearing. | No evidentiary hearing; dismissal without a hearing affirmed because jurisdictional exceptions were not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (establishes two-part test for §9545(b)(1)(ii): facts were unknown and could not have been ascertained with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (clarifies focus of §9545(b)(1)(ii) is newly discovered facts, not newly willing sources)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect petitioner’s interests)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must explain why facts could not have been learned earlier through due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (distinguishes newly discovered facts from newly discovered sources)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA court factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 86 A.3d 883 (Pa. Super. 2014) (example where affidavits showed petitioner's due diligence in attempting to locate recanting witness)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discusses limits of due diligence where petitioner could not have known about concealed coercive conduct)