Com. v. Lewis, L.
2115 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- In November 1992 Leon Lewis participated in multiple armed robberies of Philadelphia bars; he was arrested and, after a 1994 jury trial, sentenced to an aggregate 120–240 years.
- Lewis failed to file a direct appeal promptly; he later obtained restoration of direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc through an initial PCRA petition and lost that direct appeal. Multiple subsequent PCRA actions and appeals followed over years.
- After several rounds of PCRA proceedings and a federal habeas denial, Lewis filed the PCRA petition at issue on January 20, 2011 (and later filings/docket entries through 2015–2016). The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely on June 6, 2016.
- Lewis argued various grounds to overcome the PCRA time bar: government interference (withholding transcripts, submission of allegedly fraudulent documents), newly discovered facts arising from federal habeas proceedings, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and judge recusal/due-process violations.
- The PCRA court found Lewis’s petition untimely and that he failed to plead or prove any of the statutory exceptions to the one-year filing requirement; the Superior Court affirmed for lack of jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lewis) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely under an exception to the one-year rule due to government interference | Petition filed well beyond one year of finality; no timely exception pleaded | Petition untimely; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Government interference exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(i)) | Officials withheld transcripts and submitted fraudulent documents preventing earlier raising of claims | Allegations undeveloped: Lewis did not identify what was withheld, by whom, or when; no proof | Exception not shown; claim insufficiently pleaded and unsupported |
| Newly discovered facts exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Facts discovered during federal habeas (investigator statements) justify late filing | Lewis failed to show facts were unknown and could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence | Exception not proven; PCRA court’s rejection affirmed |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on layered ineffective-assistance claim | Appellate counsel ineffective; hearing required to develop layered claim | Court lacked jurisdiction because petition untimely and no exception satisfied; no entitlement to hearing | No evidentiary hearing; dismissal affirmed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2013) (treats PCRA petition as first when direct-appeal rights were restored in prior petition)
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denial; view record in light most favorable to prevailing party below)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (procedural review standards cited)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; courts cannot reach untimely petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate deference to PCRA court findings when supported)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (elements of newly discovered facts exception under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional effect of PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (right to self-representation framework)