Com. v. Laboy, R.
230 A.3d 1134
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background
- On Jan. 21, 2006 David Kern was assaulted and fatally stabbed; Tina Garcia was an eyewitness who later identified Roberto Laboy as an assailant. A co‑assailant, James Hower, pled guilty to third‑degree murder and testified against Laboy.
- Laboy was convicted by jury of second‑degree murder (May 10, 2011) and sentenced to life without parole (July 27, 2011).
- On direct appeal Laboy argued, inter alia, a Brady claim that the Commonwealth withheld a deal or benefit between prosecutors and Garcia regarding unrelated forgery charges; the claim was rejected and appellate review was denied.
- Laboy filed a first PCRA petition (May 9, 2013), which was denied after hearing; that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- Laboy filed a pro se second PCRA petition on July 2, 2018, again alleging undisclosed prosecutorial benefits to Garcia; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (Nov. 20, 2018) with testimony from Garcia’s counsel and the DA, then denied the petition as untimely (Apr. 24, 2019).
- The Superior Court vacated the denial and remanded because the PCRA court failed to appoint counsel (or conduct a Grazier colloquy) for Laboy before the evidentiary hearing as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(D); the court did not reach the merits of Laboy’s timeliness or Brady claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / PCRA time‑bar exceptions (§ 9545) | Laboy contends his second PCRA is timely under exceptions (unknown facts or government interference) and was filed within the requisite period after learning of the facts. | Commonwealth maintained the petition was untimely and did not satisfy a statutory exception. | Not reached on merits because remand required for counsel issue; timeliness remains to be decided on remand. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady (undisclosed deal with eyewitness) | Laboy asserts the Commonwealth suppressed a promise/benefit to Garcia (forgery case disposition) that would impeach her testimony, violating Brady. | Commonwealth disputed existence/knowledge of any agreement and maintained no Brady violation was proven. | Not decided; Superior Court did not reach Brady claim pending resolution of counsel appointment and potential new evidentiary hearing. |
| Right to appointed counsel at a PCRA evidentiary hearing (Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(D) / 908) | Laboy argued he was entitled to counsel or at least the opportunity to have counsel at the PCRA evidentiary hearing under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. | Commonwealth did not dispute rule language but relied on waiver procedures and that the claim had not been preserved in the 1925(b) statement. | Superior Court held the PCRA court erred by failing to appoint counsel (or conduct a Grazier colloquy) before the evidentiary hearing when Rule 904(D) applied; vacated denial and remanded for appointment/Grazier hearing and a new hearing if counsel is appointed. |
| Preservation / 1925(b) waiver | Laboy pressed the Rule 908(C) argument. | Commonwealth and the court noted Laboy failed to raise Rule 908(C) in his 1925(b) statement, making that specific claim waived. | Court deemed the specific Rule 908(C) claim waived but nonetheless raised sua sponte the Rule 904(D) appointment error and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishes prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (court must raise sua sponte failure to appoint counsel for indigent first PCRA petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995) (no constitutional right to counsel in state collateral proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, 683 A.2d 908 (Pa. Super. 1996) (PCRA right to counsel governed by criminal procedural rules)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and exceptions must be pleaded)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denial and jurisdictional nature of timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (requirements for on‑the‑record waiver of counsel when a defendant proceeds pro se)