Com. v. Hopper, T., 461 EDA 2016

Hopper pled guilty in 2008 to PWID and conspiracy; sentenced to time served up to 23 months plus 3 years probation and was immediately paroled. Probation was later revoked after a 2008 firearm conviction, and Hopper did not appeal the revocation sentence.
Hopper filed a counseled PCRA petition on September 29, 2014, claiming after-discovered evidence: several officers involved in his 2005 arrest were indicted federally in July 2014 on corruption-related charges.
The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice finding the petition facially untimely, that Hopper failed to invoke a timeliness exception, and that the implicated officer’s involvement in Hopper’s prosecution was minimal; the court dismissed the petition on February 2, 2016.
Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders/Santiago (accepted in lieu of Turner/Finley), filed a brief explaining her review and conclusion that no non-frivolous issues existed, and notified Hopper of his rights; the Superior Court granted withdrawal and reviewed the merits.
The Superior Court held Hopper’s PCRA petition was untimely (judgment final February 16, 2008; PCRA deadline February 16, 2009), and Hopper failed to plead or prove any timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).
Even assuming exception eligibility, the Court found Hopper’s after-discovered-evidence claim insufficiently developed (no nexus between the indicted officers and Hopper’s arrests, and no detailed facts or authority), so the claim was waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of PCRA petition	Hopper argued newly discovered evidence (officers’ 2014 indictments) entitled him to relief	Commonwealth argued petition filed well beyond one-year PCRA deadline and no timely exception proven	Petition was facially untimely; dismissed for failure to plead/prove an exception
Applicability of newly discovered facts exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii))	Hopper claimed federal indictments of officers in 2014 were newly discovered facts supporting relief	Court required Hopper to plead and prove the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception within 60 days of discovery; Hopper failed to do so	Hopper failed to invoke or prove the exception; jurisdictional time-bar not satisfied
Sufficiency of after-discovered-evidence claim	Hopper asserted indictments showed officer corruption that undermined his conviction	Commonwealth and PCRA court noted Hopper provided only officer names and no factual connection to his arrests or case, so claim lacked specificity	Even if timely, claim was inadequately developed and thus waived; no relief granted
Counsel’s withdrawal under Turner/Finley and Anders/Santiago procedures	Appellate counsel sought permission to withdraw as no non-frivolous issues existed	Court reviewed counsel’s filing, confirmed client notification, and independently reviewed the record	Court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed dismissal; Turner/Finley/Anders requirements satisfied

Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (petitioner bears burden to plead/prove PCRA timeliness exception)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (distinguishes § 9545(b)(1)(ii) time-bar from merits-based PCRA eligibility)
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (claims may be waived if not developed with specific facts and authority)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural protections when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requirements for counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral appeals)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Turner/Finley procedural standard for no-merit letters)
Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. 2012) (court must independently review record when counsel seeks withdrawal)