Com. v. Johnson, M.
3759 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Johnson was convicted of four robberies and related firearms offenses in 2000 and sentenced to 30 to 70 years; the trial and sentencing included strong evidence and positive identifications.
- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on August 29, 2001; Johnson did not seek further direct review, so the judgment became final on September 28, 2001.
- Johnson filed a third PCRA petition on September 19, 2013, with an amended petition in 2014 and a discovery motion in 2015; the PCRA court dismissed on untimeliness grounds.
- Johnson argued the time bar should be excused by the newly discovered evidence (Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)) related to witness Hayes and Robinson and alleged Brady violations.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, holding the petition facially untimely and the new evidence did not satisfy the due diligence and admissibility criteria for the time-bar exception.
- The court noted the heightened standard for second or subsequent PCRA petitions and that the claimed Brady concerns did not demonstrate diligence or merit for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely filed. | Johnson argues exceptions apply. | Commonwealth asserts untimeliness with no applicable exception. | Untimely; no applicable exception shown. |
| Whether the 9545(b)(1)(ii) new evidence exception applies. | Newly discovered facts via Hayes/Robinson justify relief. | Facts known for 15 years undermine due diligence; evidence would be cumulative. | Not entitled to exception; petition remains time-barred. |
| Whether the second/successive petition rules preclude relief here. | N/A or not raised. | Rules limit relief unless innocence or miscarriage of justice shown. | Applied; petition denied on timeliness and lack of exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (jurisdictional timing rules for PCRA petitions; untimeliness precludes review)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness mandatory and jurisdictional; exceptions must be pled and proven)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (limits on courts to extend PCRA deadlines; strict timebar)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (burden on petitioner to prove exception to time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (strong prima facie showing required for second/subsequent PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2006) (second PCRA petitions require showing of miscarriage of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (standards for after-discovered evidence in PCRA)
- Barndt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA petitions; procedural issues and notice deficiencies acknowledged)