Com. v. Hill, W.
1778 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 20, 2017Background
- Wendell Hill was convicted in 1984 of second-degree murder and robbery for a 1983 Shop-n-Bag manager killing and is serving life imprisonment.
- At trial, co-conspirator O’Neal Searles testified about providing information and taking proceeds; several eyewitnesses identified Hill at the scene. Hill’s convictions and direct appeals were exhausted by January 1988.
- Hill filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; the present filing (his fifth) asserted after-discovered evidence based on two affidavits (Anthony Harvin and Frieda Miller) submitted in 2013.
- Harvin’s affidavit claimed Searles was the lone robber and detectives promised to drop unrelated charges if Searles implicated Hill; Miller’s affidavit alleged detectives offered her a reward to testify but she was not called at trial.
- The PCRA court dismissed Hill’s petition as untimely; Hill argued the affidavits satisfied the newly-discovered-facts exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). He also sought discovery under Pa.R.Crim.P. 572, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — newly discovered facts under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Hill: Harvin and Miller affidavits are new facts proving actual innocence and qualify for the exception; he filed promptly after learning of them. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Petition is facially untimely (final judgment in 1988); Hill did not show why affidavits could not have been obtained earlier or that facts were previously unknowable. | The court held the petition untimely and that Hill failed to meet the due diligence requirement for the newly-discovered-facts exception. |
| Discovery under Pa.R.Crim.P. 572 | Hill: Requested exculpatory/impeachment materials (e.g., payments to witnesses); denial violated due process. | PCRA court: Denied the discovery motion; no comprehensive reason required where court lacks jurisdiction due to untimeliness. | Court affirmed denial; because PCRA timeliness exception not established, merits (including discovery) could not be reached. |
| Failure to preserve one claim on appeal (1925(b) waiver) | Hill: Challenged PCRA court opinion as contrary to record. | Commonwealth: Claim not preserved in Rule 1925(b) statement. | Court held the claim waived for failure to include it in the concise statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; definition of final judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (newly-discovered-facts exception requires facts unknown despite due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (strict enforcement of due diligence in PCRA filings)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus is on newly discovered facts, not newly discovered sources)