Com. v. Gandy, J., Com. v. Gandy, J. No. 1672 EDA 2016

Background

In 1985 a jury convicted Jamil Gandy of first‑degree murder and an unlicensed firearm charge; he received life imprisonment for murder and a concurrent 1–2 year term for the firearm conviction.
Direct appeals were denied; Gandy thereafter filed multiple state and federal post‑conviction petitions, all denied.
On July 2, 2015 Gandy filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the PCRA court treated as his fifth PCRA petition.
Gandy alleged prosecutorial misconduct: that prosecutors requested destruction of blood/DNA forensic evidence two weeks after his arrest, and claimed prior counsel were ineffective for failing to discover/present exculpatory evidence (Brady claim).
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 18, 2016; Gandy appealed, arguing the court erred by dismissing without a hearing or appointed counsel and raising Brady/governmental‑interference/newly discovered evidence claims.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and that Gandy failed to invoke a timeliness exception within the required 60‑day period; he had raised a similar destruction claim in a 2011 PCRA petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA petition was timely / whether the court had jurisdiction	Gandy argued the petition raised governmental interference and newly discovered facts (destruction of forensic evidence) excusing the time bar	Commonwealth argued Gandy’s judgment became final in 1987 and the 2015 petition is untimely; exceptions not timely invoked	Held: Petition untimely; jurisdictional time bar not satisfied; dismissal affirmed
Whether the court erred by dismissing without a hearing or appointed counsel	Gandy claimed dismissal without a hearing or appointed counsel violated his rights and prevented presentation of constitutional claims	Commonwealth maintained timeliness is jurisdictional and a merits hearing is unnecessary for an untimely petition	Held: No error—court properly dismissed as untimely; no jurisdiction to reach merits or appoint counsel
Whether prosecutorial destruction of evidence established governmental interference under § 9545(b)(1)(i)	Gandy alleged prosecutors solicited destruction of blood/DNA evidence, constituting government interference and a new fact	Commonwealth noted Gandy failed to file within 60 days of learning the alleged facts and had raised substantially similar claims in 2011	Held: Claim rejected as untimely under the 60‑day requirement and previously litigated; exception not satisfied
Whether Brady violations warranted relief despite procedural default	Gandy asserted Brady violations from withheld/destroyed evidence that would exonerate him	Commonwealth argued Brady claims cannot overcome PCRA timeliness when exceptions not timely pled	Held: Brady claim not considered on merits because petitioner did not meet PCRA timeliness exceptions; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prior PCRA history and facts of this case)
Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is mandatory and jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 916 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness requirement of the PCRA is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (timeliness and exceptions framework)
Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA is the exclusive means for collateral relief and subsumes habeas corpus)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)