Com. v. Johnson, A., 3443 EDA 2016

Background

In November 2000 A.M. was assaulted, robbed, and sexually assaulted; semen was recovered on a shirt and in her mouth/throat. Police recovered the shirt and tracked use of the victim's stolen cell phone to Anthony Johnson; his DNA matched the semen on the shirt.
Johnson was convicted by jury in August 2001 of rape and related offenses and sentenced to 25–50 years. Direct appeal was initially mishandled but later reinstated; judgment of sentence became final on June 29, 2005.
Johnson filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; earlier petitions restored appellate rights and were resolved. The instant (fifth) PCRA petition was filed May 23, 2016 and dismissed as untimely by the PCRA court.
Johnson’s core claims: Brady violations (alleging suppression of exculpatory lab information about inconclusive throat-semen testing and presence of blood on the shirt) and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not investigating or testing blood and for allowing allegedly misleading evidence about throat semen; he also argued counsel should be appointed to litigate timeliness.
The PCRA court rejected timeliness exceptions: Johnson failed to plead due diligence showing he could not have discovered the lab documents earlier; ineffective-assistance claims cannot overcome the PCRA one-year time bar; appointment of counsel for this successive petition was not required because no material factual dispute warranted an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Timeliness — does an exception to the 1‑year PCRA time bar apply based on alleged Brady evidence?	Brady suppression of lab results (inconclusive throat-semen, blood on shirt) prevented earlier filing.	Johnson could have discovered documents earlier; he failed to plead due diligence or government interference preventing earlier discovery.	Petition untimely; no exception established because Johnson did not show due diligence or government interference.
Brady violation — did prosecution suppress exculpatory evidence?	Lab reports/receipts show suppressed exculpatory or impeachment evidence material to guilt/credibility.	Documents were available in the record and Johnson did not explain why he could not have obtained them earlier; no showing of prejudice sufficient to overcome timeliness.	Court declined to reach merits because Brady argument did not excuse untimeliness; governmental-interference exception not proven.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at trial — failure to test blood / investigate throat-semen results	Trial counsel failed to obtain or challenge forensic testing that could have exonerated Johnson.	IAC claims cannot be used to circumvent PCRA timeliness requirements; additionally, Johnson failed to plead facts that meet an exception.	IAC claims rejected as untimely; they do not satisfy a statutory exception to the one‑year rule.
Right to counsel on PCRA — whether counsel should have been appointed to develop timeliness exceptions	Counsel should have been appointed to investigate and establish an exception to the time bar.	For second/subsequent petitions, counsel is appointed only if an evidentiary hearing is required; no material factual dispute exists that would require a hearing.	No appointment required; no material facts in dispute and petition was plainly untimely.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for denial of PCRA relief)
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA timeliness jurisdictional rule)
Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (government-interference exception requires due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61 (Pa. 2009) (elements for establishing a Brady violation)
Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (IAC claims do not overcome PCRA time bar)