Com. v. Hayes, D., 1919 WDA 2016

Background

In 2003, Davon Hayes confessed to participating in a robbery during which a store clerk, William Anderson, was shot and killed; Hayes was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and sentenced to life plus a concurrent 5–10 year term.
Hayes’s direct appeal and subsequent appeals addressing the voluntariness of his confession were unsuccessful; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
Hayes filed multiple PCRA petitions: two earlier petitions were denied and those denials were affirmed on appeal.
On October 7, 2016 Hayes filed a third (untimely) PCRA petition claiming newly discovered facts: statements by Darnell Clark and Richard Peterson (from transcripts of a co-conspirator’s trial) and an August 24, 2016 affidavit from Antoine Lester.
The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely under the one-year jurisdictional bar; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Hayes failed to prove the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered-fact exception or to file within the 60-day discovery window.

Issues

Issue	Hayes's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Hayes’s third PCRA petition satisfies the newly-discovered-facts exception to the one-year time bar (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii))	Hayes: Transcripts of co-defendant Herring’s proceedings revealed that witnesses (Clark, Peterson) did not implicate Hayes, and Lester’s affidavit corroborates that Clark exonerated Hayes — facts previously unknown and not discoverable with diligence	Commonwealth: Hayes knew or could have discovered these facts earlier through counsel, friends, or basic investigation; Lester was a known acquaintance and Clark’s lack of identification was known earlier	Denied — Hayes failed to show facts were unknown or that he exercised due diligence; exception not met
Whether Hayes filed within 60 days of discovering the alleged newly-discovered facts (Section 9545(b)(2))	Hayes: Filed promptly after learning the facts / obtaining transcripts and affidavits	Commonwealth: Record shows Hayes knew of Clark’s exonerating statement by June 26, 2016 (per Miller affidavit) but did not file until October 7, 2016, beyond 60 days	Denied — Hayes did not file within 60 days of discovery
Whether Lester’s affidavit constitutes a newly-discovered fact separate from previously available information	Hayes: Lester’s affidavit identifies that Clark said Hayes was not involved; Lester was previously unknown	Commonwealth: Lester was a friend of Hayes and known from October 9, 2003; Hayes offers no explanation for failure to locate him earlier	Denied — Lester’s affidavit does not qualify as newly discovered under § 9545(b)(1)(ii)
Whether Herring’s trial transcripts create newly-discovered facts that could not have been obtained with due diligence	Hayes: Transcripts revealed testimony favorable to Hayes	Commonwealth: Hayes and/or counsel could have learned of Herring’s trial and obtained transcripts earlier (Hayes had prior counsel and access to legal research)	Denied — Hayes failed to plead due diligence and thus transcripts do not meet the exception

Key Cases Cited

Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA factual and legal determinations)
Chester v. Miller, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Breakiron v. Horn, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (due diligence requires petitioner to explain inability to learn facts earlier)
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus on newly discovered facts, not newly willing source; discovery date controls 60-day rule)
Burton v. Commonwealth, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (elements of § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
Stokes v. Commonwealth, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness separate from merits)
Carr v. Commonwealth, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect petitioner’s interests)
Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (60-day filing requirement under § 9545(b)(2))