Com. v. Lee, T.
2233 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Tamir Lee pleaded open guilty to third-degree murder, possession of instruments of crime, and criminal conspiracy after jury selection; sentenced to 25–50 years on March 8, 2013.
- Lee did not file a direct appeal; his judgment became final on April 8, 2013 (30 days after sentencing).
- On January 29, 2015 Lee filed a petition styled as a writ of habeas corpus; the PCRA court treated it as a PCRA petition.
- Lee alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, involuntary plea (including Alleyne/mandatory‑minimum arguments), newly discovered evidence concerning Detective Ronald Dove, and other defects.
- Appointed PCRA counsel filed a Finley/Turner no-merit letter and moved to withdraw; the court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition on June 8, 2016 as untimely.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition was facially untimely and Lee failed to prove any statutory timeliness exception; the court also denied Lee’s motion for special relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Lee: his January 2015 filing is a timely collateral challenge / should be considered despite lapse | Commonwealth: petition filed more than one year after judgment was final; time‑bar applies | Held: petition is facially untimely (final April 8, 2013); dismissed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) |
| Applicability of PCRA exceptions (governmental interference) | Lee: governmental interference (appointment/system of counsel) excused time bar | Commonwealth: government‑official exception excludes defense counsel; Lee failed to plead facts showing interference by government officials | Held: exception not met; defense counsel not a ‘‘government official’’ under § 9545(b)(4) |
| Newly discovered evidence (Detective Dove) | Lee: newly discovered evidence about Detective Dove’s alleged misconduct warrants relief | Commonwealth: evidence is newspaper/report‑based, not admissible new evidence; no showing result would differ; Lee pleaded guilty and accepted plea facts | Held: exception not proven; Castro and Lyons principles preclude relief based on the proffered materials |
| Ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel | Lee: PCRA counsel was ineffective, prejudicing his collateral review | Commonwealth: Lee failed to raise specific PCRA‑counsel claims in his Rule 907 response; counsel’s representation showed no wrongdoing | Held: claim limited to matters raised in Rule 907 response and is waived for lack of specificity; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory‑minimums and facts increasing mandatory sentences must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (newspaper articles are not admissible evidence for newly discovered‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (elements for new‑trial motion based on after‑discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (discussing standards for after‑discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA is sole means for collateral relief encompassing habeas corpus)
- Commonwealth v. Crews, 863 A.2d 498 (Pa. 2004) (when judgment of sentence becomes final for PCRA purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no PCRA hearing required where record shows no genuine issue of material fact)