Com. v. DeLoatch, A.
1953 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2022Background
- In 1990 DeLoatch was convicted of first-degree murder and, in 1994, sentenced to life imprisonment.
- His direct appeals were exhausted by 1995; his judgment of sentence became final on January 11, 1996.
- Over decades he filed multiple PCRA petitions; the 2019 petition at issue was his eighth PCRA filing.
- The 2019 petition alleged Brady violations and challenged the PCRA court’s application of the due-diligence/time-bar rules; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 intent-to-dismiss notice and later denied relief as untimely.
- The Superior Court held the petition was untimely, that DeLoatch did not plead or prove a statutory time‑bar exception, and that Dennis (3d Cir.) does not control Pennsylvania courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeLoatch) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether PCRA court’s use of due-diligence to reject claims denied due process | DeLoatch: Court must first determine if constitutional violation occurred (esp. Brady) before applying due diligence; applying due diligence first denies due process | Court: Timeliness is jurisdictional; petitioner must plead and prove statutory exceptions and show due diligence where required | Denied — petition untimely; no exception proven, due diligence requirement appropriately applied |
| 2. Whether PCRA court failed to address ineffective-assistance claims and misapplied due diligence when Brady is asserted | DeLoatch: Brady claim removes or alters due-diligence requirement; ineffective-assistance tied to suppressed evidence needed merits review | Court: Brady arguments previously litigated; reasserted claims do not satisfy a new exception; petitioner must still plead exception to time bar | Denied — Brady previously litigated; exception not established |
| 3. Whether alleged obstruction of appeal (by officials) constitutes governmental interference excusing time bar | DeLoatch: Official obstruction prevented timely raising of meritorious appealable issues, satisfying governmental-interference exception | Court: Petitioner failed to plead/prove governmental-interference exception in this petition; issues were previously litigated | Denied — no pleading/proof of interference; untimely |
| 4. Whether applying due-diligence creates an unconstitutional bar to Brady claims | DeLoatch: The due-diligence requirement effectively forecloses Brady claims and denies equal protection/due process | Court: Pennsylvania law requires pleading exceptions; federal circuit decisions (Dennis) are not binding on Pennsylvania courts | Denied — state PCRA timeliness rules control; petitioner did not meet exception |
| 5. Whether courts must first determine if Brady violation occurred before assessing cognizability/time bar | DeLoatch: Court must decide Brady merit before applying PCRA time-bar standards | Court: Time-bar exceptions must be pleaded and proven; the court lacks jurisdiction over untimely petitions absent an exception | Denied — jurisdictional time bar applies; no exception established |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence violates Due Process)
- Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 834 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (circuit court view on due diligence and Brady)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 200 A.3d 11 (Pa. 2019) (state courts bound by U.S. Supreme Court, not inferior federal courts)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (statutory exceptions to PCRA time bar listed)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (time-bar exceptions must be pled below and cannot be raised first on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions without exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. DeLoatch, 665 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1995) (prior appeal affirming conviction)