Com. v. Jones, B., 3090 EDA 2015

Barry Jones was convicted in 1988 of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy and sentenced to life; direct appeal affirmed in 1990.
Jones filed multiple PCRA petitions (1996, 2001, 2009); earlier petitions were denied as untimely or dismissed on appeal.
He filed a fourth PCRA petition pro se on January 5, 2015, claiming a newly discovered "fact": his first PCRA counsel, James Bruno, had mental health diagnoses revealed in a December 2014 Pennsylvania Law Weekly article.
Jones argued the article constituted a "new fact" under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), triggering the 60-day filing window and excusing his untimeliness.
The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the mental-health disclosure was not a qualifying "new fact" and the underlying ineffectiveness claim was previously litigated.

Issue	Jones' Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the December 2014 article about Attorney Bruno's mental-health diagnosis satisfies the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) "new fact" exception to the PCRA one-year time bar	The article revealed a previously unknown fact (Bruno's diagnoses) that explains counsel's abandonment and was discovered within 60 days, so the petition is timely	The diagnosis is an explanatory cause of counsel's conduct, not a "new fact" that was necessary to prove ineffective assistance; the claim was untimely and not saved by the exception	Denied. The diagnosis is not a qualifying "new fact" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii); petition remains untimely
Whether Jones may relitigate Bruno's ineffectiveness claim given prior litigation	The mental-health revelation prevents prior resolution and justifies reconsideration	The underlying ineffectiveness claim was previously raised and decided; collateral-review bar applies	Denied. The claim was previously litigated and thus ineligible for PCRA relief
Whether court may excuse timeliness to reach other appellate claims (trial counsel errors, etc.)	Timeliness exception for Bruno's diagnosis permits review of other claims	Other claims were not pled with any timeliness exception, so court lacks jurisdiction to address them	Denied. Court did not reach other claims because timeliness not established

Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits implicate jurisdiction and cannot be ignored)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (three-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997) (procedural rule allowing first PCRA petitions for convictions finalized before amended PCRA effective date)