Com. v. Powell, R.
1137 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- In 1991 Robert Powell was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and attempted homicide for a 1990 shooting; he received life imprisonment plus concurrent terms.
- Direct review concluded in 1995; Powell’s judgment of sentence became final December 14, 1995. Multiple prior PCRA petitions were litigated; earlier petitions were denied.
- Powell filed a serial PCRA petition, received by the clerk December 27, 2013 (docketed Jan 2, 2014), asserting newly available evidence: an October 2013 letter/recantation from Charles Eckhart and testimony from Stanley Petroski supporting an intoxication defense.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing (Dec. 18, 2014) where defense counsel, Powell, Paul Powell, Petroski, and Eckhart testified; court ruled the petition untimely and dismissed it on May 12, 2015.
- On appeal Powell argued the after-discovered-evidence exception to the PCRA time bar (Eckhart letter and Petroski); Powell abandoned the ineffective-assistance claim on appeal. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Powell's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether serial PCRA petition is timely via after-discovered-evidence exception (42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Eckhart’s 2013 letter and Petroski’s statement are newly discovered facts that would support intoxication defense and would likely change verdict | Eckhart and Petroski’s observations were known or available at trial (Petroski’s written statement admitted at trial; Eckhart testified at trial); Eckhart’s 2013 statement is cumulative/corroborative, not new facts | Petition untimely; exception not satisfied because evidence was cumulative/previously known; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to consider merits despite late filing | Powell contends he met the 60-day filing requirement after receipt of Eckhart’s letter | PCRA court found petition was filed within 60 days of Eckhart’s letter but jurisdiction still depends on proving an exception to the time bar | Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief because Powell failed to prove a qualifying exception to the timeliness rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA court fact-finding)
- Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (review limited to record supporting PCRA court)
- Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deference to PCRA factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Merritt, 827 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. 2003) (finality date and deadlines for pre-1996 convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 841 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 2003) (after-discovered-evidence standards under §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus on newly discovered facts, not new sources)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (new conduit for known facts does not satisfy §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (pleading and proving the 60-day tolling requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Fairiror, 809 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 2002) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to hear untimely petition)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)