Com. v. Hendricks, M.
Com. v. Hendricks, M. No. 234 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Appellant Matthew Hendricks filed a PCRA petition alleging the Commonwealth violated Brady by failing to disclose that witness Janelle Gordon recently said Hendricks was not involved in the 2007 killing of David Rivera.
- Hendricks previously raised an after-discovered-evidence claim based on co-defendant Clyde Lont’s alleged statement that Hendricks was not involved; that claim was raised in post‑sentence motions and addressed on direct appeal.
- At the post‑sentence hearing, Lont testified he had been with Gordon the day of the shooting and that Gordon lived near the victim; Gordon had been a significant Commonwealth witness at trial.
- Gordon testified at the PCRA hearing that she had given extensive information to defense counsel in 2008.
- The concurring/dissenting opinion (Shogan, J.) disputes the Majority’s approach: it argues the court failed first to determine whether Hendricks established PCRA eligibility and whether the claims were waived or previously litigated, and concludes the Brady claim is waived because it was (or could have been) raised earlier with reasonable diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Hendricks' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation — failure to disclose Gordon’s statement that Hendricks was not involved | Gordon’s recent revelation is exculpatory and the Commonwealth suppressed it, entitling Hendricks to relief | Claim is essentially the same as prior after-discovered-evidence claim based on Lont; evidence was known or discoverable earlier | Waived — PCRA relief denied on this ground |
| PCRA threshold — whether petitioner established eligibility and avoided waiver/previous litigation bars | PCRA petition sufficient to proceed on Brady theory | Court must first find PCRA eligibility and that claims are not waived or previously litigated; here prior litigation/availability defeats claim | Concurring judge: issue is waived; agreed with Majority’s disposition of the second issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA relief requires petitioner to prove an enumerated error and that claims are not previously litigated or waived)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (Brady does not require relief when evidence was known or discoverable with reasonable diligence or available from other sources)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information under Brady)
- Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 64 A.3d 271 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum) (direct-appeal decision addressing after-discovered-evidence claim raised post-sentence)