Com. v. Cruz, J.
1980 EDA 2013
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- On June 23, 2002, Jose Cruz fought with Javier Hernandez in a Philadelphia bar; Cruz left, returned with a gun, and fatally shot Hernandez. Multiple bar patrons identified Cruz in a photo array and at trial.
- Cruz was convicted of murder and PIC; sentenced to life plus 1–5 years. Direct appeal and first PCRA were unsuccessful.
- Cruz filed a second counseled PCRA petition on December 14, 2011, asserting newly discovered alibi evidence: an affidavit from ex-girlfriend Darlena Baez claiming Cruz was at her graduation party and on the phone during the shooting.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1); Cruz sought leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal after claiming he did not receive notice.
- Following a Grazier hearing, Cruz proceeded pro se; the Superior Court reviewed whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing the untimely petition and whether the newly discovered-facts exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz’s 2011 PCRA petition was timely or fell under an exception to the PCRA time-bar | Cruz claimed newly discovered alibi facts (Baez affidavit); she was uncooperative until Dec 2011, so petition was within 60 days of discovery | Commonwealth/PCRA court argued the alleged alibi facts were known to Cruz at trial and in his first PCRA; identity of girlfriend and alibi were not newly discovered | Petition untimely; Cruz failed to establish the newly-discovered-facts exception, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing | Cruz contended the court should have held a hearing to resolve credibility and the belated alibi | PCRA court argued no hearing required for an untimely petition that fails to plead a timeliness exception | No abuse of discretion; no hearing required because timeliness exception not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (review standard for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (PCRA timeliness jurisdictional; exceptions required)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (finality calculation for direct review period)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (newly-discovered-facts exception focuses on facts, not a newly willing source)
- Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (duty to investigate obvious sources; failure forecloses newly discovered claim)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (elements of newly-discovered-facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (right to proceed pro se procedures)