Com. v. Duncan, A., 229 EDA 2016

In 2003 Antoine Duncan was identified by Officer Jeffrey Walker as the shooter in an incident; police searched 5414 Catherine Street and seized two loaded handguns; Duncan pleaded guilty in 2005 to aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 10–20 years.
Duncan did not file a direct appeal; his judgment of sentence became final in August 2005.
In 2013 Walker was arrested on federal charges and later pleaded guilty (February 24, 2014); Walker subsequently testified in April 2015 against other officers, admitting various misconduct (e.g., falsifying paperwork, planting evidence).
Duncan filed a first PCRA petition in April 2013 alleging police misconduct by Officers Liciardello and Reynolds; that petition was dismissed in March 2015 (no appeal).
Duncan filed a second PCRA petition on May 30, 2015 seeking relief based on Walker’s federal testimony as newly discovered evidence; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on December 4, 2015.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was time-barred because Walker’s misconduct was a matter of public record once his guilty plea occurred and Duncan did not satisfy the PCRA after-discovered-facts exception within 60 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walker’s 2015 federal testimony constitutes newly discovered facts that overcome the PCRA one-year/time-bar	Walker’s sworn federal testimony revealing police misconduct is newly discovered evidence entitling Duncan to a new trial	The Commonwealth (PCRA court) argued the claims are time-barred because Walker’s misconduct was publicly known once his federal guilty plea occurred and Duncan did not file within 60 days of discovery	Court held petition untimely: Walker’s misconduct was public record (guilty plea), so Duncan failed to prove the after-discovered-facts exception and the court lacked jurisdiction

Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional; 60-day filing requirement for exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264 (Pa. 2008) (finality of judgment for direct-appeal period calculation)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (information in public record is not ‘unknown’ for PCRA after-discovered-facts exception)
Commonwealth v. Aponte, 855 A.2d 800 (Pa. 2004) (convictions and related public records are discoverable and count as public record)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements required to establish the after-discovered-facts exception to the PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (exceptions to PCRA time restrictions must be raised in the petition, not first on appeal)