Com. v. Sweet, C.
Com. v. Sweet, C. No. 2431 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- In 2001 Sweet participated in a robbery of Apple Spa; police observed him using an employee as a human shield, found him hiding under a car shortly after, recovered a handgun nearby and cash on his person, and he and a co-conspirator gave confessions.
- A jury convicted Sweet of burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, conspiracy, carrying a firearm without a license, and PIC; he received 17–34 years plus probation. Direct appeals and first PCRA were denied; federal habeas was denied.
- In 2013 Sweet filed a second PCRA petition based on a 2012 affidavit from co-defendant Jose Medina claiming Sweet was merely a customer and that the Commonwealth had prevented Medina from testifying to that effect in exchange for a plea.
- PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and dismissed the petition as untimely or meritless; Sweet appealed pro se.
- The PCRA court found Medina’s affidavit false or unreliable (Medina had been tried and convicted and testified in his own case) and concluded Sweet did not meet timeliness or newly‑discovered‑evidence standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdictional bar | Sweet: Medina affidavit is new evidence and shows governmental interference, so PCRA timeliness exception applies | Commonwealth: Affidavit is false/unreliable; petitioner failed due diligence and cannot meet §9545 exceptions | Court: Petition untimely; exceptions not satisfied (governmental‑interference and newly discovered evidence fail) |
| Newly discovered evidence standard | Sweet: Medina’s affidavit would exonerate him and justify a new trial | Commonwealth: Evidence is unreliable and contradicts overwhelming trial evidence; does not meet Cox factors | Court: Even if timely, affidavit would not likely produce a different verdict; fails newly discovered evidence test |
| Prosecutorial misconduct claim | Sweet: Suppression/inducement of Medina’s testimony demonstrates misconduct | Commonwealth: No plea bargain or suppression occurred; Medina testified at his trial | Court: No governmental interference shown; claim fails |
| Alleyne / mandatory minimum challenge | Sweet: Sentence illegal under Alleyne and Hopkins | Commonwealth: Alleyne/Hopkins do not apply retroactively on collateral review | Court: Alleyne and Hopkins do not provide relief here (not retroactive); claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (elements for newly discovered evidence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 941 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007) (one‑year PCRA time bar rule)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (60‑day requirement and due diligence for PCRA exceptions)