Com. v. Stubbs, H., III
766 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Appellant Henry C. Stubbs III was convicted by jury of two counts of first‑degree murder and multiple related offenses and is serving two consecutive life sentences.
- Conviction became final on May 22, 2006, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Direct and prior collateral review concluded in 2010; Stubbs filed prior PCRA petitions and sought relief earlier.
- On April 12, 2016 Stubbs filed a pro se, third PCRA petition alleging: government interference/Brady violations (withholding a bench warrant for witness Angela Mayfield), destruction of court filings by the Luzerne County Clerk, police evidence tampering/perjury, and fraud upon the court by the prosecution.
- The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely on March 29, 2017; this appeal followed.
- The Superior Court concluded the petition was facially untimely and that Stubbs failed to prove any statutory exception (governmental interference or newly discovered facts) or lack of prior litigation; several claims had been previously litigated or were undeveloped.
Issues
| Issue | Stubbs' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Brady / governmental interference (withheld bench warrant for witness Mayfield) | Mayfield had an active NJ bench warrant withheld by Commonwealth; this is Brady material and invokes §9545(b)(1)(i) to overcome time bar | Claim was previously litigated in earlier PCRA; even if warrant exists, trial counsel reasonably elected not to impeach Mayfield; claim is not a new fact | Denied — previously litigated; counsel had reasonable strategy; not an exception to time bar |
| 2) Clerk destroyed Rule 1926(b) filing and exhibits, amounting to governmental interference / equitable tolling | Clerk failed to docket or destroyed motion and exhibits in 2007, preventing proper review and meriting tolling under §9545(b)(1)(i) | Bare allegation without substance or timing; petitioner failed to plead when he learned of omission and thus failed the 60‑day requirement for exceptions | Denied — undeveloped, untimely; petitioner failed to prove exception or timely filing |
| 3) Police tampering with physical evidence and perjured testimony | Police tampered with evidence and committed perjury, depriving fair trial and due process | Issues were raised or could have been raised earlier; claims are undeveloped and were considered in prior PCRA; counsel had reasonable basis for decisions | Denied — previously litigated/undeveloped; no relief on untimely petition |
| 4) Fraud upon the court / request for court to use inherent power despite time bar | Fraud by prosecution and perjury justify ignoring PCRA time limits and permit relief on the merits | PCRA allows only statutory exceptions to time bar; equitable/ad hoc exceptions are not permitted | Denied — PCRA time bar applies; no statutory exception shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PCRA time‑bar and statutory exceptions govern jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 155 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2017) (newly discovered facts requirement; limits on equitable tolling)
- Commonwealth v. Domek, 167 A.3d 761 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standards for ineffective assistance review cited)
- Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2014) (claims waived when not developed)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing appeals)