Com. v. Sample, J.
1745 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- In 1992 a jury convicted James Sample of first-degree murder; he received life without parole. Appeals and allocatur denials concluded in 1995 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court) and 2000 on subsequent post-conviction review.
- Sample filed multiple PCRA petitions. His first timely PCRA was dismissed in 1998; appellate rights were denied through 2000. A second PCRA (2006) raised newly discovered evidence based on a statement by Raymond Curry and was dismissed; appeals were denied in 2009.
- In 2010 Sample filed a third PCRA petition attaching a new Curry statement (obtained via a private investigator) claiming Curry identified the shooter as someone other than Sample.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2010 petition as untimely and as raising matters previously litigated; Sample’s later procedural efforts reinstated appellate rights nunc pro tunc and led to this appeal.
- The Superior Court affirmed: Sample failed to establish a statutory timeliness exception (no due diligence shown for discovery of Curry’s 2010 statement) and the claim was previously litigated in earlier PCRA proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under PCRA (§9545) | Sample: 2010 petition filed within 60 days of obtaining Curry’s exculpatory 2010 statement, so it fits the newly-discovered-facts exception | Commonwealth: Petition is facially untimely (judgment final in 1995); Sample cannot show due diligence to discover Curry’s statement earlier | Held: Untimely — Sample failed to show due diligence; 2010 statement could have been discovered earlier (Curry was incarcerated in same system in 2006) |
| Successive-petition standard | Sample: New Curry statement shows actual innocence and miscarriage of justice | Commonwealth: Successive petition must make a strong prima facie showing; issue was previously raised and litigated in earlier PCRA | Held: Sample did not meet the heightened showing for a subsequent PCRA; claim previously litigated and lacked merit |
| Previously litigated bar | Sample: 2010 statement is newly identifying/exculpatory and differs from earlier Curry statement | Commonwealth: Earlier petitions raised similar claims based on Curry; claim was decided on the merits previously | Held: Court concluded the identification issue was previously litigated in 2006 petition and appeals, so relief barred |
| Necessity of merits analysis when timeliness fails | Sample: Urges consideration of actual innocence on merits | Commonwealth: Timeliness jurisdictional; merits need not be reached if time-bar not overcome | Held: Court applied timeliness rules and declined merits review because exceptions not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (due-diligence standard for newly discovered facts exception)
- Abu-Jamal v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness inquiry separate from merits)
- Burkhardt v. Commonwealth, 833 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. 2003) (heightened prima facie showing required for successive PCRA petitions)
- Jordan v. Commonwealth, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (definition of newly discovered facts standard)
- Carpenter v. Commonwealth, 725 A.2d 154 (Pa. 1999) (previously litigated bar principles)
- Halley v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (standard of appellate review for PCRA dismissal)
- Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (PCRA timeliness and 60-day filing requirement)