Com. v. Jones, G.
63 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Sep 27, 2017Background
- Gerald Jones was convicted (1981) of multiple first‑degree murders and arson arising from 1977 firebombings and received aggregate life sentences.
- His direct appeal was affirmed in 1986 and he did not seek allocatur; he subsequently filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (seven unsuccessful petitions prior to the filing at issue).
- On November 17, 2014 (amended Dec. 1, 2014), Jones filed his eighth PCRA petition; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely on December 20, 2016.
- Jones based his latest petition on a recently obtained affidavit from a “prison paralegal” alleging that three co‑defendants refused to testify at a 1988 retrial and that the Commonwealth used storyboards/exhibits at that retrial.
- The PCRA court and this Court held the petition untimely and found Jones failed to prove a statutory time‑bar exception (governmental interference or newly discovered facts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 PCRA petition is timely | Jones contends the petition is within 60 days of learning new facts via the paralegal affidavit | Commonwealth argues the petition is decades late and untimely; time‑bar is jurisdictional | Petition is untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Jones established a statutory exception to the PCRA time bar (gov’t interference; newly discovered facts) | Jones claims government interference denied access to 1988 retrial transcripts/exhibits and the affidavit reveals newly discovered facts (co‑defendants’ non‑testimony, storyboards) | Commonwealth and PCRA court contend Jones knew or could have discovered the information earlier; the affidavit only supplies a new source for previously known facts and is not exculpatory | Jones failed to prove either exception (no due diligence, facts were not truly new or exculpatory); exceptions not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (definition and due diligence for newly discovered fact exception)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness and government‑interference principles; exceptions must be pleaded and proven)
- Commonwealth v. Ward‑Green, 141 A.3d 527 (Pa. Super. 2016) (newly willing source of previously known facts does not satisfy §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same principle regarding previously known facts)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (exceptions to PCRA time bar must be pled below)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA court findings binding if supported by record)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA court may deny hearing if claim is patently frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 518 A.2d 282 (Pa. Super. 1986) (background on related co‑defendant retrial issues cited in prior proceedings)
Order affirmed.