Com. v. Doty, C.
Com. v. Doty, C. No. 1626 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Christopher Doty was convicted by jury (Jan 2009) of conspiracy and aggravated assault for a 2008 attack; sentenced in absentia to 115–232 months plus restitution after failing to appear for sentencing.
- Doty’s direct appeal was quashed as fugitive conduct; he filed multiple PCRA petitions challenging timeliness and raising newly discovered evidence and Brady claims.
- Earlier appellate decisions (Doty I and II) rejected relief and found timeliness problems; a 2012 PCRA petition alleging an affidavit from witness Shawn Williams was dismissed as untimely (Doty III affirmed dismissal).
- In Sept. 2016 Doty filed another PCRA petition claiming the newly-discovered-facts exception: he learned on July 7, 2016 that an inmate had told him how to regain appellate rights and to seek reinstatement nunc pro tunc.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as failing to plead or prove an exception to the timeliness requirements; Doty raised the inmate-advice factual predicate for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement on appeal.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Doty waived the newly-asserted factual basis by not pleading it in the petition and, on the merits, inmate legal advice does not satisfy the newly-discovered-facts exception or establish entitlement to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doty) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doty pleaded and preserved a §9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered-facts exception | Doty: learned on July 7, 2016 from another inmate how to regain appellate rights and filed within 60 days | Commonwealth: Doty failed to allege those facts in the PCRA petition; raised them first on appeal | Held: Waived — petition did not allege the facts; cannot raise first in Rule 1925(b) statement |
| Whether the alleged inmate advice constitutes newly-discovered facts under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Doty: inmate’s instruction was new and timely discovered | Commonwealth: legal advice from another inmate is not a newly-discovered factual predicate and could have been discovered with diligence | Held: On the merits, inmate legal advice does not meet the newly-discovered-facts exception; would not permit relief |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition | Doty: petition is timely under the exception | Commonwealth: petition facially untimely and no proper exception proved | Held: No jurisdiction absent a proven exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether judicial decisions or legal advice can be newly-discovered facts | Doty: relied on counsel/inmate advice to restore rights | Commonwealth: courts have rejected judicial decisions or legal advice as newly-discovered facts | Held: Rejected — judicial decisions/legal advice are not newly-discovered facts for §9545(b)(1)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (untimely PCRA petitions raise jurisdictional defects)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements of newly-discovered-facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for legal questions and review of timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2013) (judicial decisions and legal advice are not newly-discovered facts)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 960 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 2008) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 997 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Doty I) (direct appeal quashed due to fugitive status)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Doty II) (affirming PCRA dismissal issues)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 97 A.3d 814 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Doty III) (affirming dismissal of 2012 PCRA petition)