Com. v. Calderon, F.
513 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Felix Calderon was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession of an instrument of crime for the 1995 shooting death of Ricardo Rosario and wounding of Michael Jennings; sentenced to life.
- Direct appeal was reinstated nunc pro tunc; this Court affirmed the judgment and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2000, making the judgment final in August 2000.
- Calderon filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (2001, 2004, 2006); earlier relief was denied and appeals were unsuccessful.
- In June 2016 Calderon filed the present pro se PCRA petition, attaching a signed statement from Manuel Rosa describing having seen the altercation and hearing gunshots. Calderon claimed Rosa’s statement was newly discovered evidence supporting self-defense and actual innocence.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under the PCRA one-year time bar; the court found Calderon failed to show due diligence in discovering Rosa and that Rosa’s statement merely repeated trial testimony and did not support self-defense.
- Calderon appealed the dismissal; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and the newly-discovered-facts exception was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Calderon’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition is timely via the newly-discovered-facts exception | Rosa’s statement was newly discovered and Calderon filed within days of obtaining it, supporting self-defense/actual innocence | Calderon failed to show due diligence in discovering Rosa; petition filed 15 years late and Rosa’s statement reiterates trial evidence | Denied: Calderon failed to prove due diligence; exception not met; petition untimely |
| Whether the court abused discretion by not liberally construing pro se petition or holding an evidentiary hearing | Pro se status entitles petition to liberal construction and an evidentiary hearing on self-defense claim | No abuse: court properly applied timeliness rule and no jurisdiction absent a timely-filed petition or exception | Denied: no jurisdiction to reach merits; no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time-bar jurisdictional effect)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (newly-discovered-facts exception requires facts unknown and not discoverable with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (due diligence standard for PCRA time-bar exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (failure to exercise due diligence defeats newly-discovered evidence claim)