Com. v. Scott, E.
441 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Edward Scott was convicted in absentia of aggravated and simple assault (trial Nov. 15, 2012) and sentenced in absentia to 90–180 months (Dec. 18, 2012). Counsel did not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal.
- Scott filed a first pro se PCRA petition (May 2, 2013); amended petition raised that jury selection in his absence violated rights and trial counsel was ineffective for not preserving/appealing that claim. The PCRA court dismissed; this Court and the Supreme Court denied relief on appeal.
- Scott filed a second PCRA-related filing in May–June 2015; the court treated it as a second PCRA petition and dismissed it as untimely because no time‑bar exception was pled; Scott relied on an alleged letter from the victim claiming coercion but did not initially attach it.
- Scott filed a third PCRA petition (Oct. 7, 2015) attaching a victim letter dated Sept. 4, 2015, stating the district attorney coerced the victim to testify; also later submitted a July 10, 2011 letter from the victim to the DA asking to drop charges.
- The PCRA court dismissed the third petition as frivolous and, on reconsideration, denied it as untimely because Scott failed to show due diligence — he knew or could have discovered the coercion allegations earlier (victim’s July 2011 letter was in the trial record and victim had previously written to the court), and Scott had relied on the letter in earlier filings.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed: the petition was untimely and Scott failed to establish the newly‑discovered‑evidence exception or exercise due diligence; no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott is entitled to relief/new trial based on newly discovered evidence (victim’s recantation letter) | The Sept. 4, 2015 letter is newly discovered and would have changed the outcome; requires new trial/evidentiary hearing | Letter is not newly discovered for timeliness exception; record shows Scott knew or could have discovered coercion earlier | Denied — petition untimely; Scott failed to plead due diligence and prima facie miscarriage of justice |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by not addressing timeliness before merits | Scott contends the court should have considered merits or found timeliness excused | Commonwealth argues timeliness is jurisdictional and must be shown; court properly could dismiss as untimely | Denied — PCRA court’s failure to initially discuss timeliness was harmless; petition was untimely on record |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by coercing victim and ambushing defense with parole officer testimony | Scott asserts prosecutorial intimidation/coercion and trial by ambush warrant relief | Commonwealth denies misconduct or says claims are procedurally defaulted and untimely; factual record does not support claim | Denied — allegations do not overcome time bar and are unsupported to warrant relief |
| Whether due process was violated by prosecutor’s actions | Scott claims due process violations from coercion and false testimony | Commonwealth disputes and notes record evidence (victim’s statements) contradicts claim of innocence/overwhelming injustice | Denied — no showing of fundamental miscarriage of justice or newly established facts timely presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Halley v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Carr v. Commonwealth, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2001) (deference to PCRA factual findings)
- Jordan v. Commonwealth, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (PCRA court may dismiss frivolous claims without a hearing)
- Burkhardt v. Commonwealth, 833 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stringent standard for subsequent PCRA petitions)
- Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (timeliness of PCRA petitions is jurisdictional)
- Bennett v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (newly discovered facts exception requires unknown facts despite due diligence)
- Abu‑Jamal v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness determination does not require merits analysis)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2007) (issues not pled below are waived on appeal)