Com. v. Garwood, A., Com. v. Garwood, A. No. 2752 EDA 2016

In 1980 Garwood was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses for two 1977 firebombings; he received three life sentences.
Direct appeals concluded in 1987; judgment of sentence became final when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal and no certiorari was filed.
Garwood filed multiple post-conviction petitions: an initial PCRA in the late 1980s (denied), a second PCRA dismissed in 2005 (affirmed), and a 2010 pro se petition titled as a habeas corpus petition.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court directed the trial court to adjudicate Garwood’s 2010 filing; the lower court treated it as a third PCRA petition and notified Garwood it was untimely.
Garwood alleged Brady violations (prosecutor failed to disclose payments to witnesses and a witness’s psychological defects) and asserted ineffective assistance for not raising those claims.
The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding the petition was time-barred and Garwood did not meet statutory timeliness exceptions.

Issue	Garwood's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the 2010 habeas petition should be treated as a PCRA petition	The petition was for habeas relief under Pa. Const. art. I, §14 and should not be subject to PCRA timeliness rules	The PCRA is the sole vehicle for collateral relief; claims cognizable under the PCRA must be analyzed as such	Treated as a PCRA petition; PCRA applies
Whether the petition was timely filed under the PCRA	The 2010 filing date should be considered timely or excused due to delayed discovery	Judgment became final in 1987; the one-year filing rule applies and petition filed in 2010 is untimely	Untimely; judgment final in 1987, petition filed long after deadline
Whether Garwood invoked a timeliness exception (governmental interference or newly discovered facts)	Claimed prosecutor suppressed payments to witnesses and a witness’s psychological defects, discovered in notes of testimony	Alleged facts were publicly available and known earlier; Garwood previously raised related claims in earlier PCRA litigation	Exceptions not satisfied; claims were discoverable earlier and not raised within 60 days of discovery
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel saves the untimely petition	Prior counsel’s failure to raise Brady claims made the petition timely	Ineffective assistance does not overcome PCRA timeliness requirements	IAC claim does not salvage an otherwise untimely petition; dismissal affirmed

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA is exclusive vehicle for collateral claims cognizable under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (Brady claims are cognizable on collateral review under the PCRA)
Commonwealth ex rel. Dadario v. Goldberg, 773 A.2d 126 (Pa. 2001) (ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioners bear burden to plead and prove timeliness exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589 (Pa. Super. 2016) (petitions invoking exceptions must be filed within 60 days of when claim could first be presented)
Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (reinstatement of PCRA appellate rights nunc pro tunc is itself a subsequent PCRA petition)
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 851 A.2d 870 (Pa. 2004) (context for claims alleging differential treatment among co-defendants)
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance of counsel cannot save an untimely PCRA petition)
Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997) (explaining PCRA timeliness proviso for judgments final before amendment)