Com. v. Hall, R.
Com. v. Hall, R. No. 1532 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Robert Hall was convicted in 1997 of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and abuse of a corpse and sentenced to mandatory life. His direct appeal and subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.
- Hall filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (2001, 2007, 2010, 2015) that were dismissed as either without merit or untimely; appellate review was repeatedly denied.
- On February 10, 2016 Hall filed his fifth PCRA petition alleging "new evidence" (detectives apologized and suggested undisclosed exculpatory evidence; other new-witness and forensic claims).
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely without a hearing; Hall appealed.
- The Superior Court held Hall’s petition was facially untimely (judgment became final Sept. 11, 2000) and that Hall failed to prove any statutory timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
- The Superior Court also found several claims were previously litigated or waived and denied Hall leave to add new facts after denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition | Petition is timely because based on new facts/evidence uncovered by detectives and others | Judgment of sentence became final Sept. 11, 2000; petition filed 2016 is untimely absent an exception | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Applicability of § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (newly discovered facts) | New facts from detectives and witnesses were unknown and could not have been discovered earlier | Hall knew or could have discovered facts earlier; he waited years after learning some facts (e.g., met detectives in 2011) and failed 60‑day filing rule | Hall failed to prove due diligence and missed the 60‑day window; exception not satisfied |
| Previously litigated / waiver doctrine | Several factual claims (witness statements, mental condition of a witness, 911 calls) are newly asserted and exculpatory | Some claims were raised or could have been raised in prior proceedings; thus waived or previously litigated under § 9544 and Pursell | Several claims were previously litigated or waived; Hall cannot relitigate them |
| Amendment / submission of new facts after dismissal | Requests leave to submit newly discovered facts after denial | New facts must be presented in a proper PCRA petition; cannot amend after appeal denial | Application to submit new facts denied; must file proper petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 750 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super. 1999) (direct-appeal decision in defendant’s case)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA one-year time bar rule)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (timeliness under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (pro se waiver/Grazier hearing principles)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (deference to PCRA factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA fact-finding deference)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner’s burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due diligence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (previously litigated doctrine under § 9544)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 815 A.2d 598 (Pa. 2002) (cannot amend PCRA petition after denial)