Com. v. Molina, A.
2602 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- In 1993 Antonio Molina hired a hit man; the victim was murdered and Molina paid $5,000. Molina was tried in 2002, convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy, and sentenced to life. Appeals were denied.
- Key Commonwealth witnesses included Mariano De Los Santos and Ramon Guaba, who testified that they overheard Molina arranging the killing; De Los Santos admitted hoping cooperation would reduce his unrelated sentence.
- Molina filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; his third petition (filed 2013) was denied as untimely and that denial was affirmed.
- In 2015 Molina filed a fourth PCRA petition attaching a May 2015 affidavit from De Los Santos recanting his trial testimony. Molina invoked the PCRA after-discovered-fact exception to overcome the one-year timeliness bar.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Molina did not show he exercised due diligence in obtaining De Los Santos’s affidavit given prior evidence of recantation and Molina’s long delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Molina) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Molina’s 2015 PCRA petition is timely via the after-discovered-fact exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | De Los Santos’s May 2015 affidavit is newly discovered and was filed within 60 days of Molina’s ability to present it | Molina knew or should have known of De Los Santos’s recantation earlier and failed to show diligence in obtaining the affidavit | Petition untimely; exception not met because Molina failed to prove due diligence |
| Whether Molina filed within 60 days of when claim could first be presented (§9545(b)(2)) | Filed Aug 31, 2015, within 60 days of Supreme Court denial of prior review (Aug 10, 2015) | Commonwealth did not contest 60-day filing once affidavit received | Court found Molina timely filed after Supreme Court action but still failed on merits of diligence |
| Whether prior indications of recantation (2002 trial admissions, 2004 cellmate affidavit, 2013 USCIS document) satisfied requirement to seek De Los Santos earlier | Molina claimed he repeatedly sought help from others and lacked funds/ability from prison to secure affidavit sooner | Commonwealth argued those prior signs obligated Molina to take reasonable steps earlier to obtain recantation; inaction undermines due diligence | Court held prior indications required Molina to act earlier; lack of specifics about efforts defeated due diligence claim |
| Whether bald assertions of attempts to contact witness suffice for due diligence | Molina asserted repeated requests to others to contact De Los Santos and eventual success | Commonwealth emphasized need for specific, reasonable steps showing effort; mere assertions insufficient | Court required detailed, fact-specific showing; Molina’s generalized statements insufficient; exception not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragan v. Commonwealth, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits implicate jurisdiction)
- Lark v. Commonwealth, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (timing for filing subsequent PCRA when prior petition pending)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements of after-discovered-fact exception: unknown facts and due diligence)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence is fact-sensitive; requires reasonable efforts and is strictly enforced)
- Monaco v. Commonwealth, 996 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defendant must take reasonable steps to protect interests; cannot wait for evidence to appear)