122 A.3d 1144
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Barry Crespo was convicted in 2009 of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and related offenses and sentenced to 20–40 years imprisonment.
- His direct appeal was affirmed by the Superior Court in 2010; he did not seek further review by the Supreme Court.
- Crespo filed a counseled PCRA petition in January 2011 which was denied after hearings; the denial was affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in March 2014.
- In September 2014 Crespo filed a second PCRA petition alleging newly discovered evidence and governmental interference: that trial counsel Lance Marshall had been the subject of criminal and disciplinary investigations predating trial, creating a conflict of interest.
- The PCRA court dismissed the second petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Crespo failed to prove either the newly discovered evidence or governmental interference exception to the PCRA time-bar.
Issues
| Issue | Crespo’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing the petition as untimely because Crespo alleged newly discovered evidence (counsel’s pretrial investigations/public reports) | The articles revealing Marshall’s legal problems were discovered only in July 2014 and thus satisfy the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) 60‑day newly discovered evidence exception | The information was publicly available before trial (and before Crespo’s first PCRA) and thus discoverable with due diligence; exception not met | Court held the news articles were public record and discoverable earlier; the newly discovered evidence exception was not satisfied, so petition untimely |
| Whether the petition was timely under the governmental‑interference exception because the Commonwealth concealed knowledge of counsel’s problems | The Commonwealth knowingly concealed its knowledge of Marshall’s investigations, preventing earlier presentation of the claim under § 9545(b)(1)(i) | The documentation relied upon was public record (newspaper articles); Crespo did not show DA interfered or concealed the information | Court held Crespo did not allege or prove government concealment where the underlying material was publicly available; exception not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Barndt v. Commonwealth, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for PCRA decisions)
- Garcia v. Commonwealth, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness and filing window for PCRA exceptions)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. 2011) (post‑conviction petition timeliness is jurisdictional; 60‑day rule for exceptions)
- Edmiston v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (to be "unknown" for § 9545(b)(1)(ii), information must not be of public record)
- Fisher v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 864 (Pa. 2005) (articles available and discoverable earlier do not satisfy the newly discovered evidence exception)