Com. v. Johnson, D.
1885 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- In August 2008 two masked intruders attacked a victim; police quickly arrived and apprehended two suspects; a weapon and a white bandana were recovered and the victim’s watch was found on Appellant’s person.
- Appellant Dale Johnson was convicted of multiple offenses (including aggravated assault and robbery) and sentenced on October 22, 2009 to an aggregate 12–24 years (including a 10–20 mandatory term under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 for a prior violent conviction).
- Direct appeals were denied and the judgment became final on May 3, 2011.
- Johnson filed multiple PCRA petitions between 2011 and 2016 asserting ineffective assistance, after-discovered evidence (witness Dayon Chambers), and other claims; prior petitions were dismissed as untimely or without merit.
- On October 27, 2016 Johnson (pro se) filed his fourth PCRA petition alleging (1) an Alleyne-based illegal-sentence claim and (2) a Brady claim for withheld witness testimony; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne or other illegality renders sentence non-waivable or creates a timely exception | Sentence is illegal under Alleyne and related developments; prison library closures prevented timely discovery | Johnson’s 10–20 mandatory term was imposed under § 9714 (prior conviction), not § 9712; Alleyne does not apply to prior-conviction enhancements and does not provide timeliness exception | Denied — Alleyne inapplicable; claim would not overcome PCRA time bar |
| Whether Brady claim (withheld Chambers testimony/other witnesses) overcomes PCRA timeliness bar | Commonwealth withheld exculpatory testimony; Dennis (3d Cir.) bars a due-diligence requirement for Brady | Petition filed more than five years after finality; Brady claim was untimely and not saved by § 9545 exceptions; Third Circuit precedent is not binding and Dennis does not create a retroactive right | Denied — Brady claim untimely; no exception proven; Third Circuit decision not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements requiring jury finding)
- Dennis v. Sec’y, Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 834 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2016) (Third Circuit decision on Brady and due diligence, not binding on state courts)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (timeliness of PCRA petition is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing § 9712 and Alleyne implications)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (burden to plead and prove due diligence for PCRA time-bar exceptions)