Com. v. Nifas, R.
3395 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Rasheen Nifas was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder in 1993 and sentenced to life on October 4, 1994.
- This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on March 29, 1996; the judgment became final on April 28, 1996.
- Nifas filed a pro se PCRA petition in 1996 (first petition); it was dismissed in 1999 and his appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief.
- Nifas filed a second PCRA petition pro se on May 20, 2015—more than 19 years after his judgment became final.
- He argued the petition was timely under the PCRA exceptions for newly discovered facts (an affidavit from a co-defendant claiming Nifas was not present) and governmental interference (the Commonwealth allegedly withheld exculpatory material).
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2015 petition as untimely; the Superior Court affirmed because Nifas failed to prove either statutory exception or due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nifas's 2015 PCRA petition is timely under PCRA exceptions | Nifas: co-defendant's affidavit is newly discovered exculpatory evidence; Commonwealth withheld material — exceptions apply | Commonwealth/PCRA court: petition is facially untimely; Nifas did not show the facts were unknown or that he exercised due diligence | Petition untimely; exceptions not shown; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether co-defendant affidavit qualifies as "newly discovered facts" under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Affidavit proves facts were unknown to Nifas until recently | Co-defendant told Nifas's trial counsel of the information in 1992; facts were discoverable earlier | Not newly discovered; Nifas failed to show due diligence |
| Whether governmental interference exception under §9545(b)(1)(i) applies | Commonwealth withheld exculpatory material discovered at co-defendant's trial | Nifas could have obtained trial transcript or otherwise sought the information before his trial; no due diligence shown | Exception not proven; court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether Superior Court may raise timeliness sua sponte | N/A (jurisdictional question) | N/A | Timeliness is jurisdictional; court must address it and did so here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; courts may consider it sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (one-year filing rule and 60-day requirement for exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (when judgment becomes final for PCRA purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (untimely PCRA petitions must be dismissed absent proven exception)