Com. v. Brown, M., 87 EDA 2016

In 2005 Michael S. Brown pled guilty to multiple armed robberies and bad checks; in December 2005 he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 to 48 years. His direct appeal was denied and the judgment became final in February 2007.
Brown filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2008 which was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal.
In December 2014 Brown (through counsel) filed a second PCRA petition alleging sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to include his drug-addiction treatment records and a complete drug/alcohol evaluation in the PSI, which he claimed affected sentencing.
The PCRA court held the 2014 petition was facially untimely (PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of final judgment) and considered whether Brown could invoke the newly‑discovered facts exception to the time bar.
The court concluded Brown did not meet the newly‑discovered facts exception because (a) claims of ineffective assistance generally do not invoke that exception, and (b) Brown knew of the missing records and incomplete evaluation at sentencing in 2005 and therefore failed to show due diligence.
The Superior Court affirmed dismissal of the PCRA petition for lack of jurisdiction due to untimeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
Whether the petition is timely under the PCRA's newly‑discovered facts exception	Brown: Missing treatment records and incomplete drug evaluation were newly discovered; counsel only learned of them later and thus he exercised due diligence	Court: Brown knew of the missing records at sentencing in 2005; he did not exercise due diligence and ineffective‑assistance claims don’t typically trigger the exception	Petition untimely; newly‑discovered exception not satisfied
Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to include mitigation (drug addiction/treatment) in the PSI	Brown: Sentencing counsel’s testimony shows counsel only learned of facts later; but had counsel included records, sentence would have been different	Court: Even if counsel was ineffective, such a claim does not itself invoke the newly‑discovered facts exception and Brown failed to show due diligence	Ineffective‑assistance theory does not salvage the untimely petition

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and one‑year filing rule)
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective‑assistance claims generally do not trigger newly‑discovered‑facts exception)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (counsel abandonment in first PCRA appeal can, in limited circumstances, invoke newly‑discovered‑facts exception)