Com. v. Feese, B.
246 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Brett Feese, a former PA state representative and HRC leader, was convicted after a 23‑day jury trial for misusing taxpayer-funded resources in the "Computergate" scheme and for related obstruction/conspiracy charges; he received 4–14 years and $1,000,000 restitution.
- On direct appeal the Superior Court affirmed convictions; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal.
- Feese filed a timely PCRA petition (Aug. 31, 2015) alleging: (1) the OAG destroyed or withheld exculpatory/impeachment materials from witness interview notes; and (2) improper ex parte communications between the OAG and the trial judge’s law clerk, who later took a job with the OAG. He also moved for recusal of the PCRA judge.
- The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, denied a hearing, dismissed the petition, and denied recusal; Feese appealed. The Superior Court reviews for abuse of discretion and whether factual conclusions are supported by the record.
- The court assumed Feese’s new witness certifications true for argument’s sake but concluded he failed to satisfy the conjunctive tests for after‑discovered exculpatory evidence (reasonable diligence and likelihood of a different verdict) and failed to show prejudice from the law clerk communications; it also found no basis for recusal.
Issues
| Issue | Feese’s Argument | OAG’s / Commonwealth Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did destruction/withholding of witness interview notes entitle Feese to a PCRA evidentiary hearing/new trial? | Notes/certifications show OAG took notes, destroyed them, and withheld exculpatory/impeachment material; a hearing is required. | Issue was litigated on direct appeal; even if not, Feese cannot meet after‑discovered‑evidence test (diligence and materiality). | Denied. Court held Feese failed to prove after‑discovered evidence factors (notably reasonable diligence and likelihood of different verdict). |
| 2) Do ex parte emails between OAG and the trial judge’s law clerk (who later was hired by OAG) require a hearing or relief? | Communications and hiring created an improper relationship that undermined trial fairness; discovered via RTK request. | Issue waived or, alternatively, lacks evidence of prejudice affecting trial outcome. | Denied. Court found no showing that the communications would likely change the verdict; no prejudice established. |
| 3) Was recusal of the PCRA judge required because the judge’s former law clerk took a job with OAG? | Appearance of impropriety and potential conflict required recusal to preserve public confidence. | No specific evidence of bias or prejudice; Feese alleged speculation only. | Denied. Court found Feese did not meet burden to show bias or appearance sufficient to require recusal. |
| 4) Was a PCRA evidentiary hearing required overall? | Certifications and RTK material create genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing. | Record refutes entitlement; no genuine material factual disputes that would alter result. | Denied. Court concluded no genuine issue of material fact; PCRA court did not abuse discretion in refusing a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Feese, 79 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (direct‑appeal opinion addressing OAG discovery and note destruction)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (standards for after‑discovered evidence relief)
- Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2012) (four‑part test for after‑discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (conjunctive nature of after‑discovered evidence test)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (recusal standard and burden to show bias)