Com. v. Graves, K., 2898 EDA 2016

In January 2005 Graves shot and killed James Boone; on October 18, 2005 he entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license and was sentenced to 20–40 years.
Graves did not file a direct appeal; he filed multiple PCRA petitions beginning in 2006 and litigated the withdrawal of appointed PCRA counsel, which was affirmed on appeal.
On February 19, 2014 Graves filed a successive, pro se PCRA petition claiming newly discovered exculpatory evidence: an affidavit from eyewitness Jeremiah Clark stating Clark told detectives Boone had a gun and that detectives coerced Clark into a statement implicating Graves.
The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the 2014 petition on August 12, 2016 as untimely, finding Graves failed to satisfy the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered-facts exception.
Graves argued Clark’s affidavit established that the Commonwealth suppressed exculpatory evidence and that he entered an unknowing plea; the court and this panel found Graves knew the underlying facts (self-defense) when he pled and did not exercise due diligence to discover Clark’s claimed statement earlier.

Issue	Graves's Argument	Commonwealth/PCRA Court Argument	Held
Whether the 2014 PCRA petition was timely or fits a statutory timeliness exception	Petition fits the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly discovered facts exception because Clark’s affidavit is new evidence showing detectives coerced him and suppressed exculpatory information	Petition is untimely; Graves knew the factual basis for a self-defense claim at plea and failed to show the facts were previously unknown or that he exercised due diligence to discover them	The petition is untimely; Graves failed to establish the (b)(1)(ii) exception, so dismissal affirmed
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to receive Clark’s testimony	Clark’s affidavit raises a disputed material fact about the plea’s factual basis and suppression that warrants a hearing	No genuine issue of material fact; hearing unnecessary because Graves did not meet the jurisdictional timeliness threshold	No hearing required; dismissal without hearing was appropriate

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (timeliness requirement for PCRA is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explains components of newly discovered-facts timeliness exception)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (application of due diligence requirement under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii))
Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishable en banc decision on discovery of coerced recantation and due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (standards for after-discovered evidence relief)