Com. v. Holland, A.
3020 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- In April 2003 Avron Holland shot and killed Michael Jones Jr.; eyewitness and forensic evidence placed Holland at the scene and linked a .38 revolver found under the passenger seat of a cab where Holland had been sitting to a bullet jacket recovered from the victim.
- Holland was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury on January 10, 2006, and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeals were exhausted and the judgment became final March 13, 2008.
- Holland filed a second PCRA petition on July 6, 2015, relying on a four-page affidavit from trial witness Bobby Scott recanting his testimony and alleging prosecutorial coercion.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss, denied an extension request, granted counsel leave to withdraw under Turner/Finley, and dismissed the petition as untimely on September 20, 2016.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Holland established a statutory exception to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar (specifically the newly-discovered facts exception) and whether Scott’s recantation would likely produce a different verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holland’s second PCRA petition, filed >6 years late, satisfies the newly-discovered-facts exception to the one-year time-bar | Holland: Bobby Scott’s March 2015 affidavit recants trial testimony and is newly discovered, excusing untimeliness | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Petition is untimely and Holland cannot prove the recantation meets the standards to invoke the exception or would change the verdict | Denied — petition untimely; newly-discovered-facts exception not proved and recantation would not likely compel a different verdict |
| Whether Scott’s recantation is reliable and non-cumulative such that it would likely produce a different verdict | Holland: Recantation shows trial testimony was false and coerced | Commonwealth: Recantations are notoriously unreliable; other strong evidence supports conviction | Denied — recantation unreliable/not outcome-determinative |
| Whether PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider the merits absent a successful time-bar exception | Holland: Exception applies so court has jurisdiction | Commonwealth: No exception shown; court lacks jurisdiction | Held for Commonwealth — no jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether procedural safeguards (Turner/Finley, Rule 907) were properly applied | Holland: (implicit) procedural errors not asserted as meritorious | Commonwealth: PCRA procedures followed, counsel allowed to withdraw, notice given | Held — procedural handling proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of appellate review of PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2002) (requiring support for PCRA court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (elements required to obtain relief based on after-discovered/recanted testimony)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (recantation evidence is notoriously unreliable)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (defendant’s right to proceed pro se after waiver of counsel)