Com. v. Luckett, E.
1909 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 21, 2016Background
- In 1998 Edward Luckett was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for the 1990 home invasion, torture, sexual assault, and killing of Agnes DeLuca; he received a life sentence.
- Luckett’s direct appeals concluded with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denying allowance of appeal on December 5, 2001; his judgment of sentence became final in March 2002.
- Luckett filed multiple PCRA petitions; the petition at issue (his fifth), asserting Brady and newly discovered evidence claims, was filed pro se on October 17, 2014.
- Luckett alleged newly discovered Brady material stemming from: an April 7, 1998 summary of co-defendant Andrew Dillon, a 2005 newspaper article, and information from an inmate in December 2013; he said the Pennsylvania Innocence Project’s September 18, 2013 correspondence triggered his claims.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice finding the petition untimely because Luckett learned the new information while his fourth PCRA petition was still pending and therefore could have presented it earlier; the court dismissed the petition on September 10, 2015.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Luckett failed to meet the PCRA timeliness exceptions and citing Commonwealth v. Abu Jamal as controlling on the point that newly discovered facts learned while an earlier PCRA petition is pending must be presented to the lower court rather than held for a later petition after appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Luckett's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely under the PCRA statutory exceptions | Luckett: his Brady/newly discovered evidence claims were triggered by Innocence Project correspondence and inmate information in late 2013, and he filed within 60 days of appellate disposition | Commonwealth: petition was facially untimely; Luckett learned the information while his fourth PCRA was pending and thus could have raised it earlier | Court: Petition untimely; timeliness exception not met because Luckett should have raised the claims in the pending PCRA proceeding (affirmed) |
| Whether the court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by dismissing as untimely | Luckett: PCRA court’s timing finding conflicted with law of the case | Commonwealth: no conflict; dismissal consistent with precedent requiring presentation of new facts to the PCRA court when discovered while a prior petition is pending | Court: No law-of-the-case violation; dismissal consistent with precedent (affirmed) |
| Whether Luckett alleged governmental interference sufficient to invoke the §9545(b)(1)(i) exception | Luckett: government interference prevented earlier presentation of Brady claims | Commonwealth: Luckett did not plead or prove interference or that the evidence could not have been found earlier through due diligence | Court: Luckett failed to prove governmental interference; exception not satisfied |
| Whether Luckett was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Brady/new-evidence claims | Luckett: dismissal without a hearing improper given factual assertions | Commonwealth: untimeliness deprives court of jurisdiction; no need for an evidentiary hearing | Court: No hearing required because petition was untimely and exceptions not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (newly discovered facts learned while an earlier PCRA petition is pending must be raised to the PCRA court and cannot be preserved by appeal to restart the timeliness clock)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2005) (summary of the law-of-the-case doctrine and its purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (requirements for invoking newly discovered evidence exception under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 869 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for proving newly discovered evidence exception)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (if a PCRA petition is untimely, the court lacks jurisdiction to address substantive claims)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to accused violates due process)