Com. v. Carl, J.
Com. v. Carl, J. No. 1551 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Joel Donald Carl was convicted by a jury (Feb. 5, 2004) of first-degree murder and possessing instruments of crime for the November 13, 2002 murder of his wife; he later confessed while hospitalized.
- At trial, Carl unsuccessfully litigated a suppression motion claiming his hospital-administered medications rendered his Miranda waiver and confession involuntary.
- Sentenced March 15, 2004 to life for murder and 2½–5 years for PIC; Superior Court affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Carl filed multiple PCRA petitions; the present, serial PCRA petition was filed October 17, 2014, seeking relief as untimely and invoking the ‘‘new facts’’ exception.
- Carl claimed he only learned on August 24, 2014 that suppression counsel had visited him in the hospital the morning after the confession and observed his impaired state, which he argued would have been used at the suppression hearing.
- The court found hospital records from November 14, 2002 noted a "PA lawyer @ bedside," and concluded Carl had access to those records earlier and failed to exercise due diligence; the petition was therefore untimely and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Carl: petition timely under the 9545(b)(1)(ii) "new facts" exception because he only learned in 2014 that suppression counsel visited him and observed his impairment | Commonwealth: petition is untimely; Carl had access to hospital records documenting counsel's bedside visit and failed to exercise due diligence | Court held the petition was untimely; Carl did not satisfy the due-diligence requirement for the new-facts exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carl, 890 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prior direct appeal affirmance)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explaining the new-facts exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect one’s interests)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (strict enforcement of due-diligence requirement for PCRA exceptions)