Com. v. Faust, J.
1351 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- In 1975 Jesse J. Faust was tried for an ARCO station robbery that resulted in the attendant’s death and convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, theft, and conspiracy; he received a life sentence in 1980.
- Faust’s direct appeal was affirmed; he filed multiple post-conviction petitions (first in 1991, second in 1996) that were denied or dismissed as untimely.
- In November 2010 Faust filed a third PCRA petition claiming newly discovered Brady evidence: an anonymous 2010 handwritten note suggesting a Commonwealth witness had been hospitalized and was potentially unreliable.
- PCRA counsel filed a Finley no‑merit letter; the court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, permitted counsel to withdraw, and dismissed the petition as untimely in April 2015.
- The PCRA court found Faust’s petition barred by the one‑year timeliness rule and determined he failed to establish either the governmental‑interference or newly‑discovered‑fact exceptions to the PCRA time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition is timely under PCRA exceptions | Faust: anonymous 2010 note is Brady evidence showing witness hospitalization; petition filed within 60 days of discovery | Commonwealth: petition is patently untimely; note does not show Commonwealth withheld evidence or create a new, previously unknowable fact | Petition untimely; Faust failed to show governmental interference or a newly discovered fact, so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Commonwealth knowingly suppressed impeachment evidence (Brady) | Faust: Commonwealth knew of witness Hunt’s hospitalization and failed to disclose it, undermining credibility | Commonwealth: no evidence it knew or concealed hospitalization; trial record shows Hunt’s competency was litigated | Brady/§9545(b)(1)(i) exception not met—no proof of government interference |
| Whether anonymous note qualifies as "newly discovered facts" under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Faust: the note revealed hospitalization facts unknown at trial, entitling him to relief | Commonwealth: note is merely another source for issues already known (competency) and Faust did not show due diligence failure to discover earlier | §9545(b)(1)(ii) not met—note is an extension of known issues and Faust did not show he exercised due diligence |
| Whether PCRA court should reach merits despite timeliness | Faust: argued merits should be considered because he invoked statutory exceptions | Commonwealth: procedural timeliness is jurisdictional; exceptions not established | Court declined to reach merits and affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA one‑year time bar and exceptions analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (governmental interference may implicate Brady for timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (additional sources of same claim do not create newly discovered fact for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must explain why new facts could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for appointed counsel filing no‑merit letter)