Com. v. Garcia, K.
882 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Kenneth Garcia pleaded guilty in 2001 (counseled, negotiated plea) to possession with intent to deliver, illegal possession by an unregistered person, and DUI-related suspended-privilege driving; sentence imposed December 5, 2001 (15 months to 3 years).
- He did not move to withdraw his plea or file a direct appeal; judgment of sentence became final in early January 2002, so a PCRA petition was due by January 6, 2003.
- Garcia filed a pro se PCRA petition on February 12, 2016—over 13 years late—claiming his girlfriend, who was present at the traffic stop and previously refused to testify, is now willing to provide testimony contradicting the police.
- He argued the petition fit the PCRA’s "after-discovered facts" exception, and asked for arrest of judgment or resentencing (asserting collateral impact on a separate federal sentence).
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition without a hearing as untimely; Garcia appealed. The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was untimely and no statutory exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Garcia's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely under the after-discovered-facts exception | The girlfriend is now willing to testify; her new willingness constitutes newly discovered facts excusing the delay | The alleged facts were known to Garcia at the time of the plea; a newly willing witness is not a new fact and does not satisfy the exception | Petition untimely; after-discovered-facts exception not met because facts were known and due-diligence/60-day rules not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (defines newly discovered facts exception and due diligence requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. 2015) (clarifies focus is on newly discovered facts, not newly willing sources for previously known facts)
- Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove a timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 760 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 2000) (an untimely PCRA petition leaves the court without jurisdiction)