Com. v. Hill, L.
1225 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 6, 2022Background
- Appellant Louis Hill was convicted of attempted murder in 2009 and sentenced to an aggregate term of 23½–47 years.
- Direct appeals were denied; Hill’s judgment became final on October 5, 2011.
- Hill filed two prior PCRA petitions (timely filed in 2011 and a second in 2016); both were denied before the petition at issue.
- Hill filed a third pro se PCRA petition in May 2019 asserting, among other things, newly discovered evidence (an alleged recantation/eyewitness statement).
- PCRA counsel investigated, submitted a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter concluding the time‑bar exception could not be proven, and the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on June 4, 2021.
- On appeal Hill argued (1) PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to develop/amend the petition and include an alleged third witness’s affidavit and (2) the court erred in dismissing without a hearing; the Superior Court affirmed for lack of a proven time‑bar exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred by accepting counsel’s Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and permitting withdrawal without amending the petition | Hill: counsel failed to investigate and omit a material witness/affidavit (Witness #3) and thus was ineffective | PCRA court/Commonwealth: counsel interviewed proffered witnesses, could not obtain supporting evidence, and reasonably concluded the timeliness exception could not be pled | Court: No error — record shows counsel investigated and could not establish time‑bar exception; no relief for Hill |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing Hill’s petition without a hearing | Hill: dismissal without a hearing denied development of claims and evidence | Commonwealth: petition was jurisdictionally untimely and no exception was pleaded or proven, so court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing | Court: Dismissal appropriate because petition was untimely and Hill failed to plead/prove a statutory exception |
| Whether PCRA counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness (layered claim) required remand under Commonwealth v. Bradley | Hill: layered ineffectiveness claim based on counsel’s failure to include alleged new witness/statement warrants relief or remand for development | Commonwealth: no factual basis in record; Hill did not identify witness or proffer affidavit to show prejudice or a viable time‑bar exception | Court: Bradley allows raising layered claims on appeal, but remand not warranted here because Hill failed to identify material facts or produce the alleged affidavit; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021) (permitted raising layered claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness on appeal and described when remand is appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (newly discovered fact exception requires facts were unknown and not discoverable with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa. Super. 2012) (enumerates statutory time‑bar exceptions under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of a PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (time‑bar exceptions must be pled in the petition and cannot be raised first on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2007) (if petition untimely and no exception proven, court lacks jurisdiction to address merits)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw from PCRA representation)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for no‑merit letters when PCRA counsel seeks to withdraw)