Com. v. Harper, S., 3634 EDA 2015

Samuel D. Harper was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and related offenses for killing his wife and sentenced on February 16, 2005, to life imprisonment after waiving direct appeal in exchange for the Commonwealth not seeking the death penalty.
Harper attempted to withdraw the waiver, filed an untimely direct appeal, and then filed a first PCRA petition in 2006 which was dismissed as untimely and affirmed by this Court in 2009.
Harper filed a second pro se PCRA petition on August 6, 2012, asserting newly discovered evidence based on a newspaper article reporting that Detective Kenneth Rossiter had been dismissed from the Philadelphia Police Department for fraudulent overtime.
The PCRA court dismissed the 2012 petition as untimely; Harper appealed, arguing the Rossiter report satisfied the newly-discovered-evidence exception, Alleyne invalidated his mandatory life sentence, and trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to waive appeals.
The Superior Court held the Rossiter article satisfied the timeliness exception threshold (newly discovered fact) but found the evidence would only impeach the detective, did not alter the verdict, and in any event Rossiter was later reinstated; Alleyne and related constitutional arguments do not apply retroactively on collateral review; the ineffective-assistance claim was time-barred.

Issue	Harper's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Timeliness / newly discovered fact exception	The Rossiter article (June 2012) was newly discovered and timely filed within 60 days, so PCRA court has jurisdiction	Article does not produce evidence that would change verdict; impeachment-only evidence insufficient for relief	Court: Article satisfies jurisdictional exception but fails merits because it is impeachment-only and would not compel a different verdict
Alleyne challenge to mandatory life sentence	Alleyne renders mandatory sentencing provisions unconstitutional, so Harper's life sentence is invalid	Alleyne-based claims do not satisfy PCRA timing exceptions and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review	Court: Alleyne claim is time-barred and not retroactive to collateral cases; no relief
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel re: waiver of appeals	Trial counsel coerced/advised Harper to waive appellate/post-conviction rights in exchange for no death penalty	Ineffectiveness claim is untimely and does not meet PCRA exceptions	Court: Claim is time-barred (untimely) and therefore dismissed
Request for evidentiary hearing on Rossiter issue	Harper seeks hearing to prove relevance of Rossiter misconduct to his case	Commonwealth/PCRA court contend hearing unnecessary because evidence only impeaches and would not change outcome	Court: No evidentiary hearing warranted; petition dismissed on merits of after-discovered evidence claim

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty must be found by jury)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (elements of newly-discovered-fact exception for timeliness)
D'Amato v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (elements for after-discovered evidence relief)
Washington v. Commonwealth, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
Newman v. Commonwealth, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of mandatory-minimum sentencing statutes post-Alleyne)
Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of appellate review of PCRA dismissals)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness jurisdictional rule)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller applies retroactively to collateral cases)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1302 (U.S. 2012) (excusing procedural default in federal habeas for ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel under certain circumstances)