Com. v. Pezzeca, R.
664 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- In 1999 Robert Pezzeca was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life without parole; direct review concluded in December 2000.
- Pezzeca filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; earlier petitions and attempts to reinstate appeal rights were denied or quashed; he proceeded pro se for later petitions.
- On July 13, 2016 Pezzeca filed his fifth PCRA petition claiming newly discovered evidence: his trial counsel, David Luvara, had been criminally convicted and later disbarred, which Pezzeca said he learned through another attorney in May 2016.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) and issued a Rule 907 notice; Pezzeca appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court examined whether Pezzeca met the after‑discovered‑evidence timeliness exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) and whether the Burton pro‑se presumption against access applied.
- The court held that because Pezzeca had counsel at various times after Luvara’s conviction/disbarment became public, the public‑record presumption applied and Pezzeca failed to show due diligence; the petition was untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition satisfies PCRA timeliness via after‑discovered evidence (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Pezzeca: Luvara’s conviction/disbarment is newly discovered; petition filed within 60 days of learning | Commonwealth: Luvara’s conviction/disbarment were public records and thus discoverable earlier | Court: Untimely — Pezzeca failed to show due diligence; exception not met |
| Applicability of Burton pro‑se public‑record presumption | Pezzeca: Burton protects pro se prisoners from presumption of access; he is pro se and only learned via counsel in 2016 | Commonwealth: Burton does not apply because Pezzeca had counsel after Luvara’s conviction became public | Court: Burton exception inapplicable here; Pezzeca had counsel when records were public |
| Whether court erred by dismissing without evidentiary hearing | Pezzeca: factual dispute (Luvara’s conduct) warranted hearing | Commonwealth: court lacks jurisdiction because petition untimely; no hearing required | Court: No error — jurisdictional timeliness failure foreclosed merits and hearing |
| Ineffective assistance claim based on Luvara’s alleged crimes | Pezzeca: Luvara’s criminal conduct shows trial counsel was ineffective | Commonwealth: merits not reached because timeliness not shown | Court: Not addressed on the merits due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (pro se incarcerated petitioners may be excepted from public‑record presumption)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (public records are generally not "unknown" for PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (matters of public record do not qualify as newly discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (judgment becomes final after expiration of time for seeking further review)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits implicate jurisdiction and must be enforced)