Com. v. Strickland, D.
Com. v. Strickland, D. No. 1897 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- On May 7, 2007, Strickland shot Donte Hammond four times, killing him; a child was also wounded. Strickland fled and was arrested in September 2007.
- In February 2009 Strickland was convicted of third-degree murder, aggravated assault, carrying a firearm without a license, and recklessly endangering another person; sentenced to 21–42 years. Direct appeals were denied.
- Strickland filed multiple PCRA petitions: first in 2011 (denied), second in 2013 (denied), and this third petition on August 31, 2016 (dismissed as untimely by the PCRA court and on appeal).
- The third PCRA petition relied on a statement from Rafiq Vanhook alleging that co-defendant Jermaine Sabb tried to give Hammond a gun during the confrontation and conspired with Hammond to shoot Strickland.
- The PCRA court (and this Court) held the petition untimely under the one-year PCRA time bar because the Vanhook statement was a newly willing source for facts already known at trial; Strickland had testified at trial about Sabb producing a gun and threats by Hammond.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Strickland failed to plead and prove the newly-discovered-fact exception to the PCRA timeliness rule.
Issues
| Issue | Strickland's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition fits the PCRA newly-discovered-fact timeliness exception | Vanhook’s statement is a new fact showing Sabb tried to arm Hammond and conspired to shoot Strickland | Vanhook is merely a newly willing source for facts already known at trial | Denied — Vanhook is only a new source for previously known facts; exception not met |
| Whether the new evidence would have altered the trial outcome | Vanhook’s statement would change credibility and outcome | Evidence is cumulative of trial testimony and would not change result | Denied — evidence would be cumulative and not outcome-determinative |
| Whether Vanhook’s statement duplicates evidence already presented (e.g., Scott’s letter, Strickland’s testimony) | Vanhook provides distinct corroboration of Sabb’s gun and conspiracy | Trial record already included testimony that Sabb produced/attempted to give a gun to Hammond | Held — Court treated Vanhook’s statement as the same underlying fact known at trial |
| Whether Appellant could challenge Sabb’s testimony based on new evidence | Vanhook’s statement undermines Sabb’s credibility and warrants review | Any impeachment is based on facts known at trial; does not overcome timeliness bar | Denied — credibility/attack on Sabb does not satisfy newly-discovered-fact exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Strickland, 996 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. 2010) (describing facts and direct-appeal history)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2016) (explaining newly-discovered-fact exception requires unknown facts and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Ward-Green, 141 A.3d 527 (Pa. Super. 2016) (a newly willing source does not create a newly-discovered fact)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same principle regarding newly willing sources)
- Commonwealth v. Hudson, 156 A.3d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2017) (timeliness is a jurisdictional question reviewed de novo)