Com. v. Lawson, T.
763 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- June 12, 2006: Violent home-invasion robbery; two victims assaulted and attackers fled in victim’s truck. DNA and other evidence linked Tyree Lawson to the crime.
- Lawson was convicted by a jury of robbery (serious bodily injury), burglary, and related conspiracy counts; sentenced to an aggregate 19–60 years.
- Direct appeals were exhausted and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 10, 2013, making the judgment final.
- Lawson filed multiple pro se and counseled PCRA petitions. After appointed counsel sought leave to withdraw, a PCRA court dismissed an earlier timely petition in 2013; subsequent petitions were denied.
- On January 11, 2016 Lawson filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming newly discovered evidence (an unsworn inmate statement by Alexander Fulton) that Commonwealth witness Andrew Bing had lied about having no plea deal and that Bing received leniency in exchange for testifying; Lawson also attached portions of Bing’s guilty plea colloquy.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss as untimely and, on February 29, 2016, dismissed Lawson’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lawson’s Jan. 11, 2016 PCRA petition timely? | Lawson contends the petition relied on newly discovered evidence (Fulton affidavit) and nondisclosure/governmental interference regarding Bing’s plea, invoking PCRA exceptions. | The Commonwealth/PCRA court argues the judgment became final 6/10/2013; the 2016 petition is therefore untimely absent a proven exception. | Petition was untimely; judgment final 6/10/2013 and petition filed well after 1-year limit, so court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Do the PCRA timeliness exceptions apply (newly discovered facts under §9545(b)(1)(ii))? | Lawson argues Fulton’s affidavit revealed facts unknown before and could not have been discovered earlier—i.e., Bing admitted receiving a lighter sentence for testifying. | The Commonwealth/PCRA court argues Fulton’s statement is merely a newly willing source for facts Lawson already knew or reasonably could have discovered (Lawson repeatedly alleged Bing received leniency and attached plea excerpts previously). | Exception not satisfied: Fulton’s affidavit does not present previously unknown facts but at best a new source; Lawson had earlier alleged the same circumstances, so due diligence and 60-day filing requirements fail. |
| Do allegations of governmental interference excuse untimeliness (§9545(b)(1)(i))? | Lawson asserts the Commonwealth failed to disclose Bing’s guilty plea colloquy and failed to correct Bing’s trial testimony denying a deal. | The Commonwealth/PCRA court shows Lawson was aware of and previously attached Bing’s guilty plea excerpts in 2013 filings, so the interference claim was not raised within 60 days of discovery. | Exception not satisfied: Lawson failed to plead or prove governmental interference within the required 60-day period after learning the facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (newly-discovered-fact exception requires previously unknown facts, not just a new source)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (courts lack jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA one-year time bar and lack of jurisdiction for untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (60-day requirement for invoking timeliness exceptions and strict due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (distinguishing affidavits from unsworn declarations in PCRA practice)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (applying prisoner mailbox rule to filing dates)