Com. v. Ocasio, G., 2419 EDA 2015

In 2005 Gabriel Ocasio was convicted of first‑degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, and related offenses; he received life plus consecutive terms.
Direct appeals were denied; Ocasio filed a timely pro se PCRA in 2007, then counseled PCRA proceedings with appointed counsel James Bruno; that first PCRA was dismissed in 2009. No appeal was taken from that dismissal.
In 2012 Ocasio filed a second PCRA pro se; the court dismissed it as untimely and the Superior Court affirmed in 2014.
On December 31, 2014 Ocasio filed a third PCRA petition asserting newly discovered evidence: a newspaper article and disciplinary letter showing his former PCRA counsel (Bruno) had been suspended retroactive to February 26, 2013 for mental health issues.
The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as untimely, finding Ocasio failed to show how Bruno’s later suspension/diagnosis excused the timeliness defect because Bruno’s representation of Ocasio ended in 2009.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition because no timeliness exception was established.

Issue	Ocasio's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether third PCRA petition is timely or meets an exception	Bruno’s 2013 suspension for mental health issues is newly discovered evidence excusing late filing	Bruno’s suspension post‑dates his representation; the alleged diagnosis/suspension does not explain failure to file earlier	Petition untimely; no exception proved
Whether counsel’s alleged mental illness constitutes due diligence excuse	Ocasio contends he only recently learned of Bruno’s suspension and related mental health problems	Commonwealth asserts Ocasio knew or could have discovered issues earlier and they do not relate to period of representation	Ocasio failed to show facts were unknown or could not be discovered with due diligence
Whether interference by government officials barred timely presentation	Ocasio implies counsel’s condition interfered with his ability to proceed	Commonwealth denies government interference; this is an attorney‑fault theory, not official interference	No governmental interference shown; exception inapplicable
Whether procedural history required an evidentiary hearing	Ocasio sought relief and alleged operative facts warranting review	Commonwealth requested dismissal as untimely and unsupported	Court denied a hearing and dismissed as untimely; Superior Court affirmed

Commonwealth v. Owens, 750 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and strictly construed)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 35 A.3d 766 (Pa. Super. 2011) (when judgment is final for PCRA filing purposes)
Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 936 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 2007) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)