Com. v. Lenard, J., 353 MDA 2017

In 2007 a jury convicted John Henry Lenard, then 18, of third-degree murder for stabbing a 16‑year‑old; trial testimony included Dr. Wayne K. Ross testifying he performed the autopsy. Lenard was sentenced to 20–40 years.
Direct appeal was affirmed by this Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal; the judgment became final on September 17, 2008.
On December 15, 2016 Lenard filed his fourth pro se PCRA petition more than eight years after finality, asserting a newly‑discovered‑fact claim based on autopsy reports he received on November 14, 2016.
The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Lenard filed a pro se response, and the court dismissed the petition as untimely without a hearing on February 2, 2017. Lenard appealed.
The timeliness issue: PCRA petitions must be filed within one year of finality, but section 9545(b)(1) provides three exceptions (including newly discovered facts) if pleaded and proven, and any exception claim must be filed within 60 days of when it could have been presented.
Lenard argued he only discovered the identity of who performed the autopsy when he received the autopsy report in 2016; the court found the identity was already established at trial by Dr. Ross’s testimony, so the newly‑discovered‑fact exception did not apply.

Issue	Lenard's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Lenard’s PCRA petition is timely under the PCRA or fits an exception	Lenard: Petition invokes 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) (newly‑discovered fact) because autopsy reports received 11/14/16 showed Dr. Ross, not Coroner Hetrick, performed autopsy	Commonwealth: Petition is facially untimely and Lenard cannot meet the newly‑discovered‑fact exception because the identity of the autopsy performer was known from trial testimony	Court: Petition untimely; newly‑discovered‑fact exception not met because the fact (who performed autopsy) was known at trial via Dr. Ross’s testimony; dismissal affirmed
Whether the PCRA court erred by conducting merits analysis when deciding timeliness	Lenard: PCRA court allegedly mixed timeliness and merits analysis	Commonwealth: Court properly assessed whether the timeliness exception applied based on the record; no hearing required	Court: No error—record showed no genuine issue of material fact on timeliness; no relief available

Fears v. Commonwealth, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing PCRA denials)
Albrecht v. Commonwealth, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Cox v. Commonwealth, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (elements of newly‑discovered‑fact exception and due diligence standard)
Hackett v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness of PCRA petition as jurisdictional prerequisite)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 942 A.2d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no right to PCRA hearing where record resolves issues)