Com. v. Riley, L.
134 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Lanier Riley was convicted at a bench trial of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and related offenses; the trial court served as fact-finder.
- Riley’s first PCRA petition was dismissed; later, federal indictments charged Philadelphia officers Thomas Liciardello and Brian Reynolds with planting evidence in other cases; Jeffrey Walker had been charged earlier.
- Riley filed a second PCRA petition asserting the officers’ indictments constituted after-discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial.
- The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss Riley’s second petition as untimely and dismissed it after considering Riley’s response.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether Riley met the timeliness exception for after-discovered evidence and whether the indictments could be used for purposes other than impeachment.
- Court ruled Riley met the timing requirement for Liciardello and Reynolds but not for Walker, and found Riley failed to show the indictments would be used for anything other than impeachment; therefore no relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riley’s second PCRA petition is timely under the after-discovered evidence exception | Riley: indictments of Liciardello and Reynolds were newly discovered; petition filed within 60 days | Commonwealth: time-bar jurisdiction applies; must plead exceptions and show diligence | Court: Petition timely as to Liciardello and Reynolds (filed within 60 days); untimely as to Walker (indicted ~1 year earlier and Riley showed no diligence) |
| Whether a second/subsequent PCRA petition may proceed absent a strong prima facie showing of a miscarriage of justice | Riley: newly discovered evidence of officer corruption shows miscarriage of justice | Commonwealth: second petitions require heightened prima facie showing | Court: Recognizes heightened standard (Burkhardt) but focused on timeliness and merits as threshold issues |
| Whether the indictments qualify as after-discovered evidence that would entitle Riley to relief on the merits (requires non-impeachment use) | Riley: indictments could support CI motion, motion to suppress, and generally undermine officers’ credibility beyond impeachment | Commonwealth: the indictments’ relevance is limited to impeaching officer testimony | Court: Relevance is impeachment-only; Riley did not show indicia that indictments would be used for a purpose other than impeachment, so merits fail |
| Whether Riley established entitlement to relief on the merits given Pagan four-part test | Riley: indictment evidence would show officer misconduct affecting reliability of case evidence | Commonwealth: failure to satisfy Pagan elements, especially use beyond impeachment | Court: Riley failed to establish necessary Pagan elements (notably non-impeachment use); relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Burkhardt v. Commonwealth, 833 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. 2003) (second/subsequent PCRA petitions require a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred)
- Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional; exceptions must be pled and proven)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (after-discovered evidence exception requires the facts were unknown and could not have been learned earlier with due diligence)
- Abu-Jamal v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness determination does not require merits analysis)
- Pagan v. Commonwealth, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (sets four-part test for after-discovered evidence in PCRA context)
- D'Amato v. Commonwealth, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (after-discovered evidence must be usable for more than impeachment to warrant relief)