Com. v. Brown, C., 2435 EDA 2015

Background

In 1995 Clifford W. Brown was present when Robert Richardson shot and killed Vaughn Gaillard after a dice game; witnesses testified Brown urged Richardson to “shoot him again” and take his money. Brown was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life.
Brown pursued direct appeal and ineffective-assistance claims; the Superior Court affirmed but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s failure to call eyewitness William Hanible; subsequent proceedings rejected Brown’s ineffectiveness claim and convictions were upheld on appeal.
Brown filed multiple PCRA petitions raising after-discovered-evidence claims identifying new affiants (e.g., Shareef Cato, Tyrone Williams, Andre Lewis, Dana Lucas) who said Brown did not incite the shooting or that witness testimony was fabricated or coerced.
The PCRA court dismissed Brown’s third (and serial) petition as untimely and/or previously litigated; Brown appealed pro se arguing the after-discovered-evidence exception and denial of leave to amend.
The Superior Court affirmed: Brown failed to satisfy the PCRA’s timeliness exceptions because (a) his judgment became final in 2002 and the petition filed in 2014 was untimely, (b) he did not show the asserted facts were previously unknown or not discoverable by due diligence, and (c) the purportedly new affidavits were newly willing sources of previously known facts, not newly discovered facts.

Issues

Issue	Brown's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by concluding the petition was untimely under the PCRA	Brown argued his petition fell within the after-discovered-facts exception based on Lewis’ affidavit and was filed within 60 days of discovery	Commonwealth argued the petition was jurisdictionally untimely because Brown’s judgment was final in 2002 and Lewis’ affidavit only supplied a newly willing source, not new facts; Brown failed to plead when he first learned the facts or show due diligence	Court held petition untimely: Brown did not satisfy the §9545(b)(1)(ii) exception or the 60-day filing requirement; dismissal affirmed
Whether the PCRA court erred by not addressing newly discovered evidence on the merits	Brown contended the court should have evaluated Lewis’ affidavit on substantive grounds	Commonwealth maintained the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits because timeliness exception not established	Court held no abuse: jurisdictional timeliness prerequisites unmet, so merits not reached
Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add investigator’s interview transcript	Brown sought leave to amend to include an investigator transcript of Lewis that allegedly corroborated exculpatory statements	Commonwealth noted the transcript added nothing material and did not create newly discovered facts	Court held denial of leave to amend was not an abuse; amendment would not change the timeliness/merits outcome
Whether newly submitted affidavits (e.g., Lucas) required a remand to consider as after-discovered evidence	Brown later submitted Lucas’ affidavit recanting trial testimony and sought remand to amend petition	Commonwealth argued this would be serial litigation of the same theory (new source for known facts) and timeliness still barred relief	Court denied remand and leave to add claims in this serial petition; directed Brown to raise new claims in a subsequent PCRA if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Howard, 788 A.2d 351 (Pa. 2002) (judgment finality and timeliness rules)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (after-discovered-facts exception requires facts unknown and not ascertainable with due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (newly willing source for known facts does not satisfy after-discovered-facts exception)
Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (characterizing §9545(b)(1)(ii) as after-discovered evidence exception)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 863 A.2d 423 (Pa. 2004) (focus on newly discovered facts, not newly willing sources)
Commonwealth v. Holmes, 905 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. 2006) (60-day filing requirement measured from date claim could first be presented)
Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must explain why facts could not have been discovered earlier by due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (timeliness exceptions and burden on petitioner)