Com. v. Fleetwood, L.
68 EDA 2019
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 6, 2020Background
- Leon Fleetwood pleaded guilty on November 8, 2010 to third-degree murder and related firearm and PIC charges arising from a January 6, 2009 shooting; court imposed an aggregate 25–50 year sentence.
- He did not file a direct appeal; judgment of sentence became final December 8, 2010.
- On April 26, 2017 Detective Ronald Dove (involved in Philadelphia investigations) pled guilty to unrelated offenses (withholding information/tampering); Fleetwood filed a PCRA petition on June 13, 2017 asserting this was newly discovered evidence entitling him to relief.
- Fleetwood alleged Dove fabricated/contaminated the scene and coerced a statement, and that knowledge of Dove’s misconduct would have changed his decision to plead guilty.
- The PCRA court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding Dove’s conviction unrelated to the 2009 investigation, that the proffered proof would be impeachment only (not habit evidence), and that Fleetwood offered no nexus showing Dove materially affected his case; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception | Dove’s 2017 conviction is newly discovered; Fleetwood filed within 60 days, so petition is timely. | Commonwealth: (implicitly) challenges timeliness absent an exception; court must apply statutory tests. | Court: Exception applies; petition was filed within 60 days of Dove’s conviction, so court had jurisdiction. |
| After-discovered evidence test (9543(a)(2)(vi)) | Dove’s conviction and related scandals would have prevented plea and likely produced a different result. | Commonwealth: Evidence is remote/unrelated; Fleetwood fails prongs (nexus, non-cumulative, not merely impeachment, and changed verdict). | Court: Fleetwood failed to satisfy the after-discovered evidence elements—no nexus, no showing it wasn’t merely impeachment, and no likelihood of different outcome. |
| Admissibility as habit/practice (Pa.R.E. 406) vs impeachment | Fleetwood: Dove’s misconduct shows a habit/practice of misconduct—admissible beyond impeachment. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Single unrelated incident cannot establish habit; thus evidence would be impeachment only. | Court: Evidence did not meet habit/practice standard; would be impeachment evidence only. |
| Right to evidentiary hearing | Fleetwood: Denial without hearing abused discretion because factual development could show Dove’s role/materiality. | PCRA court: Record and attachments showed Dove did not play a material role; Fleetwood offered no supporting evidence to merit a hearing. | Court: No abuse of discretion; hearing not required where petitioner fails to proffer evidence establishing materiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (distinguishes timeliness exception under §9545(b)(1)(ii) from substantive after-discovered-evidence test under §9543(a)(2))
- Marshall v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (burden on petitioner to plead and prove a timeliness exception; due diligence requirement)
- Harris v. Commonwealth, 852 A.2d 1168 (Pa. 2004) (standards for habit evidence admissibility under Pa.R.E. 406)
- Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hosp., 151 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (habit is consistent, nonvolitional conduct; definition and probative value)
- Castro v. Commonwealth, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (newspaper articles are not competent evidence to support after-discovered-evidence claims)
- Foreman v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2012) (petitioner must show nexus between officer’s unrelated misconduct and petitioner’s case to satisfy after-discovered-evidence prong)
- Mason v. Commonwealth, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA court’s decision on evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)