Com. v. Pinson, P.
Com. v. Pinson, P. No. 1067 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Appellant Pierre Lamont Pinson filed untimely PCRA petitions in two consolidated criminal dockets in October 2015 challenging prior counsel's effectiveness for not raising prosecutorial nondisclosure regarding Detective Dennis Logan.
- Pinson's judgments of sentence became final on November 26, 2002 (Case 1) and June 25, 2004 (Case 2); timely PCRA petitions would have been due by November 26, 2003 and June 25, 2005.
- Pinson argued he discovered a new fact in 2015 via an open-records request showing Logan was named in a 2000 federal civil-rights suit, and asserted the 60-day exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
- The PCRA court dismissed both petitions as untimely for lack of jurisdiction; Pinson appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) the open-records discovery was not a newly discovered fact but merely a new source for previously known information, and (2) public-record materials do not qualify as "unknown facts" under the timeliness exception when the petitioner (or his counsel) had prior access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitions meet § 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered-fact exception | Pinson: discovery of federal lawsuit naming Logan in 2015 is a new fact entitling him to relief | Commonwealth: information about Logan was publicly available earlier and not a new fact | Held: Not a new fact; petitions untimely and jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether discovery via open-records request qualifies as "unknown" public record | Pinson: his 2015 request revealed previously unknown, material evidence | Commonwealth: public records are not "unknown facts"; prior access existed | Held: Public-record discovery does not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(ii) here |
| Whether prior panels already litigated the prosecutorial-misconduct claim | Pinson: claim merits reconsideration based on withheld Logan materials | Commonwealth: claim was previously litigated and therefore barred under § 9543(a)(3) | Held: Even on merits, claim was previously litigated and not cognizable |
| Whether PCRA court erred by not addressing motion to withdraw counsel before dismissal | Pinson: court abused discretion by not addressing withdrawal motion prior to counsel’s no-merit letter and dismissal | Commonwealth: procedural timeliness and prior litigation bars control outcome | Held: Court did not err—jurisdictional timeliness failure was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA timeliness provisions are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 863 A.2d 423 (Pa. 2004) (after-discovered-evidence exception focuses on newly discovered facts, not new sources)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (public-record matters cannot be "previously unknown facts" under § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no equitable exceptions to PCRA time-bar beyond those in the statute)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (presumption of access to public information may not apply to pro se prisoners; limited circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Pinson, 82 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prior collateral decisions addressing Logan-related claims)
- Commonwealth v. Pinson, 968 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2009) (earlier review of related prosecutorial-misconduct assertions)
- Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denials)