Com. v. Royster, T.
1906 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- In 1999 Royster shot two men; one died. He was convicted in 2000 of first‑degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses and sentenced to life plus additional terms.
- Direct appeal affirmed by this Court on May 5, 2003; judgment became final June 5, 2003 (no allowance petition filed).
- Royster filed a first PCRA petition in 2003 raising ineffective‑assistance claims; the PCRA court dismissed and this Court affirmed in 2006.
- Royster filed a second PCRA petition on January 23, 2015, conceding untimeliness but invoking the after‑discovered‑evidence exception based on a December 2014 article reporting trial counsel’s ADHD diagnosis and suspension.
- The PCRA court permitted appointed counsel to withdraw after filing Turner/Finley no‑merit letters and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 13, 2016. Royster appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Royster) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 PCRA petition is timely under the after‑discovered‑evidence exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) | The Legal Intelligencer article (Dec 2014) reporting trial counsel’s ADHD diagnosis and suspension is a newly discovered fact that could not have been ascertained earlier; petition filed within 60 days | The alleged "new fact" (counsel’s diagnosis) is a newly discovered source, not a new fact; Royster knew counsel did not pursue a diminished‑capacity defense at trial and thus could have raised it earlier | Petition is untimely; Royster failed to plead/prove the statutory exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in permitting counsel to withdraw without further action | Counsel withdrew after filing Turner/Finley no‑merit letters; Royster contends counsel took no steps on his behalf | No right to appointed counsel on a second/successive PCRA petition; withdrawal proper where timeliness exception not established | Withdrawal was proper because the petition lacked a cognizable timeliness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (standard of review for timeliness is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (after‑discovered evidence exception requires facts unknown and not discoverable with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (exception focuses on newly discovered facts, not newly discovered sources)
- Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2005) (ineffective assistance allegations do not excuse PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (discovery by current counsel of prior counsel's failures is not after‑discovered evidence for timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 947 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (burden to plead and prove statutory time‑bar exceptions)