Com. v. Morales-Vasquez, R.
757 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Ricardo Morales was convicted in 2003 of second-degree murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and conspiracy for a 2002 shooting; sentenced to life without parole plus 10–20 years consecutive.
- Direct appeal and discretionary review concluded by January 3, 2005; his judgment became final and the one‑year PCRA filing deadline was January 3, 2006.
- Morales filed multiple prior PCRA petitions; the instant (fourth) petition was filed April 30, 2015, alleging newly discovered facts: that three co‑conspirators had received secret promises of leniency that induced their trial testimony.
- He claimed he only discovered those promises around March 2015 after learning a co‑conspirator was being released and then retained an investigator whose interviews allegedly yielded recantation/confessions about pre‑trial promises.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on timeliness and dismissed the petition as untimely because Morales failed to prove the newly‑discovered‑facts exception or that he had exercised due diligence. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morales) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under the "newly discovered facts" exception to the PCRA time bar (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Morales: He did not know about pre‑trial promises of leniency to co‑conspirators until ~March 2015; investigator interviews constitute newly discovered facts and recantation evidence. | Commonwealth: Sentences and related records were public; Morales could have discovered or investigated earlier; co‑conspirators and prosecutors denied any pre‑trial promises; no due diligence shown. | Court affirmed dismissal: petition untimely; Morales failed to prove facts were unknown or that he exercised due diligence, so no jurisdiction to reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. 2015) (focus of § 9545(b)(1)(ii) is on newly discovered facts, not newly discovered sources; due diligence required)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (petitioner must plead and prove facts were unknown and could not have been ascertained with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (standards for evaluating recantation evidence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (information in public record is not "unknown" for § 9545 purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (recantation testimony may form basis for after‑discovered evidence claim but is scrutinized for reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (burden is on petitioner to plead and prove that a timeliness exception applies)