Com. v. Rambert, E.
90 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- In 1987 Rambert, an inmate, and others beat a correctional officer during a prison fire; the officer needed over 75 stitches.
- A jury convicted Rambert of assault by a prisoner, riot, and conspiracy; he was sentenced to 6 to 25 years (Nov. 10, 1987). The Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal in 1988.
- Rambert filed multiple serial PCRA petitions; the instant PCRA petition was filed May 15, 2014 (docketed May 28, 2014).
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss; Rambert responded pro se; the court dismissed the petition on Dec. 19, 2014.
- Rambert argued the petition was timely under the governmental-interference and newly-discovered-facts exceptions, claiming recently discovered victim statements that the Commonwealth failed to disclose (Brady claim).
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding Rambert ineligible for PCRA relief (no indication he was serving sentence) and, alternatively, that the petition was untimely and did not meet § 9545(b) exceptions because he failed to show due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for PCRA relief | Rambert sought PCRA relief for his convictions | Commonwealth argued Rambert appears not to be currently serving a sentence and thus ineligible | Court: Rambert appears ineligible under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i); affirmatively noted lack of record showing current sentence service |
| Timeliness of the PCRA petition | Rambert contended newly discovered victim statements and Brady failure excuse delay | Commonwealth argued petition was facially untimely (judgment final in 1988) and exceptions not proved | Court: Petition was patently untimely under § 9545(b)(1); no jurisdiction absent a timely or exception-qualifying petition |
| Applicability of timeliness exceptions (governmental interference / newly discovered facts) | Rambert asserted governmental interference and newly-discovered-facts exceptions based on discovery of victim statements in legal files | Commonwealth argued exceptions not established; trial counsel knew of statements and petitioner failed to show diligence | Court: Exceptions not established—Rambert admitted trial counsel knew of statements and failed to show due diligence to explain delay; therefore exceptions do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa.Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (courts lack jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (governmental-interference exception requires pleading and proof of official interference and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements for newly-discovered facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Walters, 135 A.3d 589 (Pa.Super. 2016) (petition invoking exceptions must be filed within 60 days of when claim first could have been presented)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to allege and prove timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa.Super. 2015) (due diligence standard strictly enforced)
- Commonwealth v. Brandon, 51 A.3d 231 (Pa.Super. 2012) (prison mailbox rule for filing dates)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa.Super. 2003) (treatment of pro se filings)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)