Com. v. Johnson, A.
Com. v. Johnson, A. No. 757 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 22, 2017Background
- Akil Johnson was convicted in 2005 of multiple drug- and racketeering-related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 49 to 98 years' imprisonment.
- Johnson’s direct appeal and two prior PCRA petitions were unsuccessful; his conviction became final in September 2006.
- In March 2015 (third PCRA), Johnson alleged newly discovered facts: that a Commonwealth investigator had an intimate relationship and a child with a Commonwealth witness, information he says he first learned from a fellow inmate in August 2015.
- Appointed counsel filed an amended PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance claims and invoking the PCRA’s "newly-discovered facts" timeliness exception; the petition lacked affidavits, detailed factual support, or allegations of due diligence.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing; Johnson appealed, raising principally that dismissal without a hearing was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was erroneous where petition raised material factual issues | The amended PCRA petition raised material facts (investigator–witness relationship) warranting a hearing | The petition was patently untimely and failed to plead a timeliness exception or factual support such that no genuine issues of material fact existed | Court affirmed dismissal; no hearing required because petition did not satisfy timeliness exceptions |
| Whether the PCRA petition met the "newly-discovered facts" exception to the PCRA time bar | Johnson contends he only learned of the relationship in Aug. 2015 from a fellow inmate and thus the facts were newly discovered | Petition did not plead or prove that facts were previously unknown or that due diligence could not have uncovered them; lacked affidavits and specifics | Court held Johnson failed to plead or prove the newly-discovered-facts exception; petition remains untimely |
| Whether failure to issue Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice requires reversal | Johnson argues lack of Rule 907 notice invalidates dismissal without hearing | Failure to give Rule 907 notice does not require relief where petition is patently untimely and no timeliness exception is proven; also Johnson did not raise the Rule 907 defect below | Court deemed Rule 907 claim meritless and waived for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explains PCRA timeliness rule and newly-discovered-facts exception requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denial and jurisdictional effect of time bars)
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to give Rule 907 notice does not automatically warrant relief where petition is untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2000) (declining relief despite Rule 907 defect where petitioner failed to plead timeliness exception)
Outcome: PCRA court's order dismissing Johnson’s petition as untimely (and denying a hearing) affirmed.