Com. v. Robinson, R.
Com. v. Robinson, R. No. 3515 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Robinson (age 18 at offense) pleaded guilty in 1983 to second‑degree murder and conspiracy; sentenced to life and concurrent 10–20 years; no post‑sentence motion filed.
- Robinson pursued multiple PCRA petitions over decades; earlier petitions were dismissed as untimely or meritless; prior appeals denied.
- In 2012–2013 Robinson filed PCRA petitions invoking Miller; in June 2015 he filed another (his ninth) alleging newly discovered facts that his trial counsel had a cocaine addiction in the early 1980s which undermined plea validity, and that the Commonwealth suppressed knowledge of counsel’s drug problems.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices and dismissed the 2012 and 2015 petitions; Robinson appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court affirmed denial of Miller/Montgomery relief (Robinson was not a juvenile) but vacated the dismissal of the newly‑discovered‑fact/time‑bar claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Robinson satisfied the §9545(b)(1)(ii) diligence/timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — newly discovered facts (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Robinson says he timely filed within 60 days of learning from a fellow prisoner that trial counsel had a long‑running cocaine problem; attaches articles, transcripts, affidavit | Court argued the alleged misconduct occurred later and did not show the facts were unknown or that Robinson exercised due diligence | Vacated dismissal and remanded for evidentiary hearing to decide whether Robinson pled and proved the newly‑discovered‑fact exception |
| After‑discovered evidence supporting plea withdrawal | Robinson contends counsel’s substance abuse rendered plea involuntary/impaired representation | PCRA court found no direct evidence counsel’s 1983 representation was affected and that later convictions do not prove earlier impairment | Court found PCRA conflated doctrines; remand required to assess timeliness/diligence first |
| Brady/governmental interference (suppression) | Robinson asserts the DA’s office knew of counsel’s drug problems and withheld exculpatory information | Commonwealth disputes applicability and PCRA court found insufficient pleading of interference | Remand permits Robinson to proffer additional evidence; claim not resolved on merits |
| Miller/Montgomery retroactivity (juvenile LWOP) | Robinson argues Miller/Montgomery require resentencing because he was 18 and classified as an adolescent | Commonwealth and PCRA court note Miller applies to juveniles; Robinson was 18 at offense and not entitled | Affirmed denial — Miller/Montgomery inapplicable because Robinson was not a juvenile |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller held retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (§9545(b)(1)(ii) — petitioner must show facts were unknown and due diligence exercised)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (standards for after‑discovered evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timeliness exception analysis and distinction between newly discovered facts and after‑discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Burkhardt, 833 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prima facie showing required for successive PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review for PCRA dismissals)