Com. v. Robinson, R.
Com. v. Robinson, R. No. 3515 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Robert E. Robinson filed multiple PCRA petitions; this appeal concerns his 8th (raising a Miller v. Alabama claim) and 9th (June 19, 2015) petitions.
- The Miller claim was dismissed as untimely because Robinson was over 18 at the time of the offense.
- The June 19, 2015 petition claimed newly discovered evidence that trial counsel used and trafficked cocaine; exhibits included a 1982 newspaper article and later records of counsel’s 1994 federal drug conviction.
- Robinson said a fellow prisoner and his aunt helped him obtain the materials; he alleged he first received an article from his aunt on October 20, 2014 and photocopied materials in April 2015.
- The PCRA court dismissed the June 2015 petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) and found Robinson failed to show an exception to the one-year time bar.
- The concurrence/dissent agrees Miller claim is untimely but argues the denial of the June 2015 petition can be affirmed without remand because Robinson failed to show due diligence and the alleged facts could not, as a matter of law, entitle him to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (PCRA/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Timeliness of Miller claim | Miller entitles Robinson to relief despite untimeliness | Robinson was over 18 at offense; Miller non-applicable | Miller claim untimely/dismissed; no jurisdiction for Miller claim |
| 2) Timeliness via after-discovered evidence (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | New facts about counsel’s drug use were unknown and discovered in 2014–2015, triggering the 60-day filing window | Exhibits were public records and thus knowable; Robinson failed to show due diligence or timely filing | PCRA court dismissed petition as untimely; concurrence would affirm for lack of due diligence |
| 3) Need for evidentiary hearing on diligence/knowledge | Robinson sought remand for hearing to develop proof of when/how evidence was learned | PCRA court found no exception; concurrence contends hearing unnecessary because record shows knowledge by Oct. 2014 and no 60-day filing | Majority remanded for hearing; concurrence dissents and would affirm without hearing |
| 4) Merits — whether counsel’s drug use could establish relief | Counsel’s drug use undermined plea advice and could show ineffective assistance | Even if true, counsel’s personal drug use does not necessarily show deficient performance or prejudice; time to attack advice has passed | Concurrence: even if timely, facts would not entitle relief; no hearing required for merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (affirmed denial where petitioner failed to show due diligence for after-discovered evidence exception)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussed access to public records for incarcerated pro se petitioners and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (remand for fact-finding on whether previously unknown facts and due diligence were shown)
- Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (evidence that is inadmissible or incapable of changing the outcome cannot support after-discovered-evidence exception)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (public records are presumptively knowable)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (due diligence as a question of law)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (due diligence does not require perfect vigilance)
- Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (counsel’s drug use irrelevant if performance met objective reasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Wiley, 966 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate principle that reviewing court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)