Com. v. Smith, R., Com. v. Smith, R. No. 815 EDA 2016

From 2004–2008 Appellant Richard Smith participated in a real‑property fraud scheme that produced forged transfer deeds and fake sales; he absconded after jury selection and was tried in absentia.
On February 12, 2010 a jury convicted Smith of corrupt organizations, multiple counts of theft by deception, conspiracy, forgery, and tampering with public records.
On April 30, 2010 Smith received an aggregate sentence of 10–20 years’ incarceration plus 14 years’ probation; he did not file a direct appeal and the judgment became final on May 30, 2010.
Smith filed a PCRA petition on July 31, 2014 (over three years after the one‑year statutory deadline) asserting (1) the PCRA court had jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence and (2) newly discovered Brady/impeachment evidence showing a key witness perjured herself.
The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as untimely, concluding Smith failed to plead any applicable timeliness exception (governmental interference or newly discovered facts).
The Superior Court affirmed, holding Smith could not invoke a PCRA timeliness exception where he had access to discovery, absented himself from trial, did not appeal, and failed to show due diligence in discovering the alleged impeachment evidence.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1. Whether the PCRA court had jurisdiction to address a claimed illegal/void sentence despite untimeliness	Smith: legality‑of‑sentence challenge is not waivable and may be addressed regardless of PCRA time bar	Commonwealth: PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; legality claims still must satisfy PCRA time limits or an exception	Court: Denied—PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; Fahy requires legality claims to meet PCRA limits; no exception pled
2. Whether the petition met a timeliness exception based on newly discovered evidence or governmental interference (Brady/impeachment of key witness)	Smith: After obtaining transcripts and investigating, he learned a critical witness perjured herself; he filed within 60 days of discovery, invoking governmental interference and newly discovered facts exceptions	Commonwealth: No government suppression; transcripts were court records and witness list was provided pre‑trial; Smith absented himself and failed to exercise due diligence	Court: Denied—no governmental interference and no due diligence shown; testimony and witness identity were discoverable earlier, so petition is untimely

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory or impeachment evidence)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14 (Pa. 2012) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (legality‑of‑sentence claims under PCRA must satisfy timeliness rules)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explains Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) "new facts" exception and distinction from after‑discovered‑evidence merits)
Commonwealth v. Nero, 58 A.3d 802 (Pa. Super. 2012) (setting out Brady elements)
Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (Brady standard and materiality)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 105 A.3d 1234 (Pa. 2014) (Brady claims do not excuse showing timeliness until jurisdictional threshold met)
Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to investigate obvious sources defeats newly discovered evidence claim)
Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (governmental interference exception requires proof that officials prevented earlier presentation)
Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) is new facts, not a new source)