Com. v. Boyd, W.
25 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- William R. Boyd was convicted in 1994 of conspiracy, multiple counts of aggravated assault, and firearms offenses for two shootings in January 1991; he received an aggregate sentence of 50–100 years.
- Boyd filed multiple unsuccessful PCRA petitions; this appeal challenges dismissal of his sixth PCRA petition filed December 3, 2015 (counseled amended petition filed May 18, 2016).
- The 2015 petition presented an affidavit from shooting victim Thomas Easley (dated Oct. 29, 2015) stating he lied at trial when he identified Boyd as the shooter and that he was pressured by police/prosecutors.
- Boyd claimed the Easley affidavit satisfied the PCRA timeliness exception for newly discovered facts under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and sought an evidentiary hearing.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, dismissed the petition as untimely and meritless, and the Superior Court affirmed, holding Boyd failed to prove both that the asserted fact was previously unknown and that he exercised due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boyd’s petition qualifies as timely under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (newly discovered facts) | Easley’s 2015 affidavit is newly discovered — Easley admits perjury and willingness to recant; petition filed within 60 days of Boyd learning of affidavit | Easley’s alleged perjury was not a new fact; prior sources and trial testimony put Boyd on notice; petition is untimely and jurisdictionally barred | Petition untimely under § 9545; Easley’s affidavit is a newly willing source for previously known facts, not a new fact, so exception not satisfied |
| Whether Boyd exercised due diligence in discovering Easley’s recantation | Boyd learned of Easley only in Oct. 2015 and could not have obtained affidavit earlier | Boyd had earlier information (e.g., Terrell Bush’s 2009 affidavit) pointing to Easley’s false trial ID and did not show attempts to locate Easley earlier | Boyd failed to show due diligence; prior available sources (Bush) made Easley discoverable and Boyd offered no explanation for delay |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | An evidentiary hearing was required because material facts were in dispute and relief (new trial) could follow if affidavit proved | No jurisdiction because petition is untimely; exceptions not satisfied so no hearing required | No error — dismissal without hearing affirmed for lack of jurisdiction under timeliness rules |
| Whether the Easley affidavit, if credited, would entitle Boyd to relief on the merits | Easley’s recantation would be after-discovered evidence undermining conviction | Court did not reach merits because jurisdictional timeliness exception failed | Merits not reached; procedural timeliness bars relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (defines § 9545(b)(1)(ii) two-part test: facts were unknown and could not have been ascertained with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (focus of timeliness exception is newly discovered facts, not newly willing sources)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must explain why facts could not have been learned earlier with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (distinguishes newly discovered facts from newly discovered sources)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 86 A.3d 883 (Pa. Super. 2014) (example where petitioner established due diligence by showing others tried to locate a recanting witness)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect one’s interests)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA appeals)