Com. v. Lee, E., 332 EDA 2021

Appellant Essite Lee was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for a November 24, 2004 double-shooting; he received two consecutive life terms on July 17, 2007.
Direct appeal concluded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance on February 24, 2011; Lee's judgment became final on May 25, 2011 (90-day certiorari period).
Lee filed a timely first PCRA petition (filed March 3, 2011); it was dismissed July 20, 2012, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal in October 2013.
Lee filed a second pro se PCRA petition on May 3, 2015 attaching two letters: (Exhibit A) a April 14, 2015 letter from "Dia Jiles" and (Exhibit B) an undated letter from Warren Harding; Lee invoked the PCRA "newly-discovered facts" exception to the timeliness bar.
The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the second petition as untimely on September 15, 2017; Lee appealed, arguing the letters established newly-discovered facts and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
The Superior Court affirmed: it held the petition was facially untimely, the letters did not satisfy the newly-discovered-facts exception (Harding was previously known and Jiles’ information was not new/due-diligence explained), and no evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Was the second PCRA petition timely or saved by an exception?	Commonwealth: Petition is untimely and Lee fails to invoke a statutory exception.	Lee: The April 2015 letters are "newly-discovered facts" under §9545(b)(1)(ii), excusing untimeliness.	Held: Petition untimely; Lee did not meet the newly-discovered-facts exception.
2) Do the letters constitute "newly-discovered facts" unknown to petitioner and undiscoverable with due diligence?	Commonwealth: Letters do not show facts unknown or that due diligence was exercised.	Lee: Letters identify witnesses and facts not known earlier that would exonerate him.	Held: Letters fail the Brown due-diligence test; focus is on facts, not a new source.
3) Is Warren Harding a "new" witness whose letter satisfies the timeliness exception?	Commonwealth: Harding was known and previously raised; therefore not new.	Lee: Harding’s 2015 letter confirms a confession by another person and is newly available.	Held: Harding was raised in Lee’s first PCRA (exhibits from 2008/2011); not newly discovered.
4) Was the PCRA court required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the second petition?	Commonwealth: No hearing required because no genuine issue of material fact exists on timeliness.	Lee: A hearing is necessary to develop and prove the newly-discovered claims.	Held: No absolute right to a hearing; PCRA court properly denied a hearing where record showed untimeliness and no genuine factual dispute.

Commonwealth v. Nero, 58 A.3d 802 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA appeals).
Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of finality; exceptions narrowly construed).
Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (newly-discovered-facts exception requires facts unknown to petitioner and due diligence; focus is on facts, not source).
Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2012) (the test for newly-discovered facts is conjunctive: unknown facts and due diligence must both be shown).
Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears the burden to allege and prove a timeliness exception).
Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates in appeals and PCRA practice).
Commonwealth v. Jerman, 762 A.2d 366 (Pa. Super. 2000) (breakdown in court procedures can excuse untimely filings where clerk fails to notify defendant of order).
Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249 (Pa. 2002) (service/docketing of Rule 1925(b) order controls whether appellate waiver attaches).
Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition; hearing required only if genuine issues of material fact exist).