Com. v. Smith, C., 3542 EDA 2015

In 1991 Christopher Smith and another man (alias “Marcus McDowell”) approached and killed James Williams; Smith confessed but said McDowell fired the shot. Smith was convicted of second-degree murder after a 1992 bench trial and sentenced to life; direct and earlier PCRA appeals were unsuccessful.
In 2015 Smith filed a PCRA petition attaching an affidavit from inmate Steven Guilford stating McDowell’s real name was Mark Kevin McDowell and alleging McDowell’s brother claimed police "got him out of" the murder (suggesting a deal/cover-up).
Smith asserted Brady violations: (1) Commonwealth suppressed McDowell’s true identity and (2) withheld disclosure of a substantial benefit given to McDowell; he also sought discovery of McDowell’s interview statements and any contract releasing him.
The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss; it dismissed the petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) for failure to show newly-discovered facts or governmental interference and denied discovery for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed timeliness jurisdictionally and affirmed: Smith failed to show due diligence or that the affidavit established a newly-discovered fact or a Brady-covered suppression of a deal; discovery was properly denied because the court lacked jurisdiction.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by concealing McDowell’s true identity	Smith: McDowell’s real name and identity were suppressed; this is newly discovered and Brady material	Commonwealth: Smith failed to show the identity was unknowable with due diligence or suppressed by govt. actors	Court: Denied — Smith did not prove due diligence failure or that identity was unascertainable; claim untimely
Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by concealing a benefit/deal given to McDowell	Smith: McDowell received a substantial benefit (release/deal) that the Commonwealth withheld	Commonwealth: Affidavit does not establish an actual deal; Smith offered only speculation/hearsay	Court: Denied — affidavit insufficient to establish a newly-discovered fact or prove a Brady suppression
Whether Smith was entitled to PCRA discovery of McDowell’s statements and any release contract	Smith: Needs discovery to prove Brady claims and to show deal/identity issues	Commonwealth: Discovery unwarranted because petition is untimely and court lacks jurisdiction	Court: Denied — discovery requires jurisdiction; untimely petition precludes discovery
Whether appellee’s late filing of brief warrants relief to Smith	Smith: Seeks reversal because Commonwealth filed its brief late	Commonwealth: No extension sought; brief untimely	Court: Denied relief — appellee’s tardy brief does not entitle appellant to reversal; court did not consider that brief

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (hearsay affidavits alleging third-party confessions are unreliable for newly-discovered-fact exception)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (affidavit alleging third-party confession did not meet newly-discovered-fact exception)
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (Brady-based timeliness claims require pleading governmental interference and due diligence showing)
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (court may limit timeliness inquiry to existence of previously unknown fact; no merits review when determining jurisdiction)
Commonwealth v. Bennet, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (elements of newly-discovered fact exception: unknown fact and due diligence to discover it)
Commonwealth v. Johnston, 42 A.3d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to grant discovery when petition untimely)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA denials)