Com. v. Felts, R.
Com. v. Felts, R. No. 2127 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- In June 2001 a robbery resulted in the fatal shooting of one victim; Robert Felts was tried and, in February 2003, convicted of first‑degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Felts’ direct appeal and subsequent allowance to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were denied; judgment became final December 16, 2004.
- Felts filed multiple PCRA petitions: a timely first PCRA (2006), an untimely second PCRA (2009) raising ineffective assistance for failure to investigate witness Marcus Gibson, and a third (filed August 21, 2012) initially raising Miller, later amended to assert a Brady claim for nondisclosure of Gibson’s criminal history.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss and ultimately dismissed the third petition as untimely under the one‑year PCRA time bar; Felts appealed.
- Felts argued the Commonwealth’s alleged failure to disclose Gibson’s criminal record constituted Brady government interference to excuse the time bar and sought discovery; he also challenged the scope of discovery limitations in the PCRA statute.
- The Superior Court held Felts’ third petition was facially untimely, concluded he failed to plead/prove the statutory exceptions (including the 60‑day filing requirement), and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by denying discovery to pursue a Brady claim | Felts: Commonwealth withheld Gibson’s criminal history; discovery needed to prove Brady and to overcome the time bar | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Petition is untimely; Felts had prior knowledge/suspicions and did not file within the 60‑day exception window | Denied — discovery not permitted to overcome untimeliness where petitioner failed to invoke an exception timely |
| Whether a Brady‑based claim can reconcile with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1’s discovery limits beyond DNA | Felts: Section 9543.1 shouldn’t preclude discovery triggered by Brady claims | Commonwealth: Statutory time limits and discovery rules do not expand for non‑DNA claims absent timely exception | Rejected — Brady claim does not excuse the PCRA time‑bar here; statutory scheme governs and exceptions must be timely pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 1733 (2012) (Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing rule relied upon in initial petition)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (Brady violations may constitute government interference for PCRA timing exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa.Super. 2014) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 156 A.3d 1194 (Pa.Super. 2017) (timeliness is question of law; plenary review)
- Commonwealth v. Felts, 855 A.2d 130 (Pa.Super. 2004) (affirming conviction on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Felts, 60 A.3d 572 (Pa.Super. 2012) (prior PCRA appeal addressing timeliness and counsel claims)