Com. v. Johnson, A.
16 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 4, 2017Background
- In 1994 Aaron Johnson was convicted of two robberies, two aggravated assaults, criminal conspiracy, and carrying firearms; sentenced to an aggregate 25–50 years.
- Johnson did not pursue direct appeal; he filed multiple prior PCRA petitions between 1996–2007, all denied.
- Victim later died (2009) and Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder in a separate 2012 trial; his co-defendant testified at that 2012 trial on May 16, 2012.
- Johnson filed the PCRA petition at issue on April 9, 2015, alleging (1) newly discovered facts based on his co-defendant’s 2012 testimony and (2) that his sentence was illegal under Alleyne.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Johnson failed to satisfy PCRA timeliness exceptions and Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — newly discovered facts exception | Johnson: co-defendant’s May 16, 2012 testimony was a newly discovered fact that could not have been ascertained earlier, so his April 9, 2015 petition is timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). | Commonwealth: co-defendant testified at the 1994 trial when Johnson was present, so the facts were ascertainable earlier; moreover, Johnson filed more than 60 days after May 16, 2012. | Court: Petition untimely — Johnson failed to prove facts were unknown or that he exercised due diligence; petition not filed within 60 days of discovery. |
| Alleyne retroactivity | Johnson: Alleyne renders his sentence illegal and provides a basis to overcome the PCRA time bar. | Commonwealth: Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. | Court: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; does not excuse untimeliness. |
| Counsel abandonment / reinstatement of appellate rights | Johnson: prior counsel abandoned him, warranting reinstatement of appellate rights. | Commonwealth: Even if abandonment claimed, timeliness and previous adjudication bar relief; prior counsel claims do not overcome statutory limits. | Court: Claim did not overcome the untimeliness/time-bar defects; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review and law governing timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements of the newly-discovered-fact timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (untimely PCRA petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)