Com. v. Saula-Rivera, M.
Com. v. Saula-Rivera, M. No. 2806 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 15, 2017Background
- Milton Humberto Saula-Rivera was convicted in 2008 after a jury trial of multiple sexual offenses for repeatedly sexually assaulting his 11‑year‑old stepdaughter; he received an aggregate 20–40 year sentence.
- Direct appeals and a first PCRA petition were denied; appellate review and certiorari were exhausted by 2012.
- In May 2016 Saula‑Rivera filed a pro se second PCRA petition seeking DNA testing of Commonwealth‑held physical evidence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1 and alleged trial counsel ineffectiveness for failing to pursue testing and other investigative steps.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition after Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, concluding the motion failed to meet Section 9543.1’s threshold requirements and was otherwise untimely as a PCRA petition.
- On appeal the Superior Court treated the filing standards for DNA motions separately from PCRA timeliness rules but affirmed because Saula‑Rivera did not: (1) specify items for testing; (2) show the items were unavailable for testing at trial under statutory exceptions; (3) consent to provide bodily samples; or (4) present a prima facie showing that exculpatory DNA would establish actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saula‑Rivera) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saula‑Rivera’s filing should be treated as a Section 9543.1 motion for DNA testing despite being labeled a PCRA petition | The petition’s sole substantive relief sought was DNA testing; form should not defeat consideration | The petition was a time‑barred PCRA filing and did not meet §9543.1 thresholds | Court: Treats DNA requests separately but still denies on §9543.1 merits because petitioner failed to satisfy statutory requirements |
| Whether petitioner identified specific evidence available for testing | Petitioner alleged the Commonwealth possessed clothing, towels, and victim’s underwear suitable for testing | Commonwealth/PCRA court noted petitioner failed to specify items in the motion and did not show evidence was newly discovered | Held: Insufficient specificity; statutory requirement unmet |
| Whether statutory exceptions excused lack of prior testing (e.g., technology not available, counsel requested funds and was denied) | Counsel failed to request DNA testing at trial; testing now would show innocence | Record shows verdict was after 1995 (DNA tech available) and petitioner never sought court funds at trial | Held: No statutory exception applies because technology existed and no denied funding request was shown |
| Whether petitioner made a prima facie showing that exculpatory DNA would establish actual innocence | Petitioner asserted actual innocence and argued testing would show no sexual contact | Court required more than speculation — a factual link showing how exculpatory DNA would establish innocence | Held: Petitioner failed to present the prima facie case required by §9543.1(c); motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discussing standard for reviewing DNA testing requests under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 875 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2005) (PCRA review standard cited)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (application for DNA testing must be made by motion and §9543.1 requirements explained)
- Commonwealth v. Weeks, 831 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2003) (postconviction DNA testing procedure and relation to §9545 time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 873 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pro se filing labeled PCRA may be treated as §9543.1 motion when sole relief requested)
- In re Payne, 129 A.3d 546 (Pa. Super. 2015) (liberal remedial interpretation of DNA testing statute)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 959 A.2d 932 (Pa. Super. 2008) (denial of DNA testing where technology existed at trial and no denied funding shown)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 889 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§9543.1 requires more than speculation; prima facie showing required)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims do not circumvent PCRA timeliness requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (ineffective assistance allegations do not avoid PCRA time bar)