223 A.3d 2
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Cruz was convicted of criminal homicide and theft in 1994 based in part on microscopic hair-comparison testimony by FBI Agent Chester Blythe and sentenced to life.
- The FBI issued a nationwide press release on April 20, 2015, admitting that many prior microscopic hair-comparison testimony statements were erroneous.
- On July 27, 2015, the DOJ sent Cruz a case-specific letter stating that Blythe's testimony in Cruz's case "included statements that exceeded the limits of science" and were invalid.
- Cruz filed a pro se PCRA petition on September 10, 2015 (with counsel later appointed), asserting the DOJ letter supplied a newly-discovered fact under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, reasoning the 60-day window began on April 20, 2015 (the FBI press release), making Cruz's September filing late.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the case-specific DOJ/DOJ letter—not the general FBI press release—triggered the 60-day filing window; the petition was timely and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz's PCRA petition was timely under the PCRA's newly-discovered facts exception | Cruz: the July 27, 2015 DOJ letter identifying Blythe's erroneous testimony is the newly-discovered fact and triggered the 60‑day filing window; he filed within 60 days | PCRA court/Commonwealth: the April 20, 2015 FBI press release was the triggering event, so Cruz's Sept. 10 filing was untimely | The court held the DOJ/DOJ letter is the triggering newly-discovered fact; Cruz's petition was timely. Case reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617 (Pa. 2017) (FBI press release may be a newly-discovered fact that triggers the 60‑day window; distinguishes old facts recycled as new)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (facts already publicly knowable do not qualify as newly-discovered for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Weimer, 167 A.3d 78 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960 (Pa. Super. 2017) (PCRA court may dismiss without a hearing when no genuine issues of material fact exist)