Com. v. Perez, J.
2438 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Jason Perez was convicted by a jury on December 18, 2006 of first‑degree murder and related offenses for the 2004 shooting death of Bryan Green and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Perez’s direct appeals were denied; his judgment became final on December 9, 2008. He filed a second, untimely PCRA petition on November 1, 2012 raising after‑discovered evidence.
- Perez’s second amended PCRA petition relied on affidavits and testimony from several alleged eyewitnesses (Brown, Williams, Perry, Evans) who recanted or disavowed prior statements identifying Perez; Perez alleged police coercion produced the original identifications.
- The PCRA court held a three‑day evidentiary hearing, receiving testimony from the recanting witnesses and police officers involved in the original investigation.
- The PCRA court found Perez satisfied the PCRA’s new‑facts timeliness exception (establishing jurisdiction) but rejected the substantive after‑discovered‑evidence claim, finding the recantations not credible and unlikely to produce a different verdict.
- The Superior Court affirmed, emphasizing deference to the PCRA court’s credibility findings and concluding the new evidence failed the D’Amato factors for after‑discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / New‑facts exception to PCRA one‑year bar | Perez: New affidavits/witness recantations are newly discovered facts excusing untimeliness | Commonwealth: (Implicit) Petition was untimely and must meet statutory exceptions | Court: Perez proved the new‑facts exception; court had jurisdiction to consider the claim |
| Merits — After‑discovered evidence (would it compel different verdict?) | Perez: Recantations and evidence of police coercion undermine original IDs and would likely change jury result | Commonwealth: Police testimony and record inconsistencies undercut recantations; evidence is impeaching and not sufficiently reliable or non‑cumulative | Court: Denied relief — recantations lacked credibility, largely impeaching, and would not likely produce different verdict; PCRA court’s credibility findings upheld |
| Credibility / Admission of evidence at PCRA hearing | Perez: Trial court improperly merged jurisdictional and merits inquiries, limiting presentation on coercion (incorporating Dawkins’ argument) | Commonwealth: Procedural default and failure to preserve this appellate claim; PCRA procedures were proper | Court: Claim not preserved in 1925(b) statement; even if considered, PCRA correctly assessed credibility and admissibility; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez‑Negron v. Commonwealth, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of appellate review for PCRA denials)
- Abu‑Jamal v. Commonwealth, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (deference to credibility findings of trial court)
- D'Amato v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (test for after‑discovered evidence)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (new‑facts exception to PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussion of jurisdictional/timeliness rules under PCRA)