Com. v. Liebel, J.
Com. v. Liebel, J. No. 3454 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- In 1997 John Liebel pleaded guilty to criminal homicide; after a degree hearing he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment in October 1997 for killing his father.
- Liebel repeatedly asserted his plea was involuntary and that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by his father; many post-conviction and direct appeals followed beginning in 2000.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed an earlier ineffective-appellate-counsel issue in 2003 and permitted a nunc pro tunc filing in 2004; multiple subsequent PCRA petitions were filed and denied between 2006 and 2012.
- In July 2016 Liebel filed his eighth PCRA petition (over ten years after the one-year statutory window), relying on a June 2016 letter from a priest stating Liebel’s father had been a permanent oblate (not a monk) and had been “volatile” while at a monastery in the 1960s.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding Liebel failed to satisfy the newly discovered facts exception because he did not exercise due diligence in discovering the monastery information and the letter was largely hearsay; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Liebel) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely under the newly discovered facts exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | The June 2016 priest’s letter revealed previously unknown facts about his father (not a monk; volatile) that support abuse claims and were newly discovered within 60 days | The petition was filed nearly 11 years after finality; Liebel failed to show due diligence in discovering these facts earlier; therefore exception not met | The court held the petition was untimely; Liebel failed due diligence, so exception did not apply |
| Whether the PCRA court misapplied the standard for the newly discovered facts exception | Liebel argued the court used improper analysis and improperly considered admissibility/merits | Court argued timeliness is jurisdictional and due diligence inquiry is required; merits/admissibility are irrelevant to timeliness but may independently fail | Court affirmed dismissal on timeliness grounds; any blending of standards did not change outcome |
| Whether the 2016 letter constituted admissible after-discovered evidence entitling Liebel to relief on the merits | Letter showed exculpatory facts that would support withdrawing guilty plea or demonstrate counsel’s ineffectiveness | Letter was hearsay and cumulative; even if admissible, petitioner did not establish diligence or other requirements for after-discovered evidence relief | Court declined to reach merits after finding time-bar; also noted the letter’s hearsay and cumulative nature undermined substantive relief |
| Whether the PCRA court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the petition | Liebel implied hearing necessary to develop proof of the monastery facts and abuse | PCRA court may dismiss without hearing where no genuine issue of material fact and petitioner not entitled to relief; timeliness failure justified dismissal | No hearing required; dismissal affirmed because petition was time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (standards for reviewing PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness jurisdictional bar under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (requirements for after-discovered evidence claim under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (relation between timeliness and substantive PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court may affirm on any valid ground supported by record)