Com. v. Terry, T.
Com. v. Terry, T. No. 547 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Thomas Lewis Terry was convicted by jury in 1993 of burglary, aggravated assault, and spousal sexual assault; his convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur in 1995.
- Terry did not file a certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, so his judgment of sentence became final on October 16, 1995.
- Terry filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; the instant filing was his eighth PCRA petition, filed pro se on March 10, 2016.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss as untimely; Terry responded but the court dismissed the petition on March 31, 2016.
- Terry claimed prosecutorial misconduct and newly discovered evidence (witness recantations and an alleged “reward fund” for witnesses) and sought to invoke the governmental-interference and newly-discovered-facts exceptions to the PCRA timeliness bar.
- The PCRA court found Terry’s petition facially untimely and that he failed to plead or prove a time-bar exception (including failure to show when he discovered the alleged new facts), so the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Terry) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely or fits a PCRA exception | Terry argued prosecutorial misconduct and newly discovered evidence (witness recantations and a reward fund) trigger governmental-interference or new-facts exceptions | Commonwealth argued petition is facially untimely and Terry failed to plead or prove any exception or timely discovery date | Held: Petition was untimely; Terry failed to establish any §9545(b) exception or that he filed within 60 days of discovery, so court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether alleged witness recantations and payments require an evidentiary hearing | Terry argued recantations and alleged payments are material and warrant an evidentiary hearing | Commonwealth maintained allegations were speculative, not supported by details or dates, and therefore insufficient to invoke relief | Held: Allegations were insufficiently detailed and untimely; no jurisdiction to order hearing |
| Whether prosecutorial allowance of false testimony violates due process | Terry invoked due-process principles based on alleged presentation or allowance of false testimony | Commonwealth disputed factual basis and pointed to procedural timeliness bar | Held: Court did not reach merits—timeliness jurisdictional defect disposed of claim |
| Whether any newly recognized constitutional rule applies retroactively | Terry referenced constitutional arguments (including Alleyne-related sentencing claim in PCRA statement) | Commonwealth noted any such claims must meet §9545 exceptions and be timely filed; Terry abandoned Alleyne claim on appeal | Held: No retroactive right was established or timely pleaded; claim abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Melendez-Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timeliness is jurisdictional for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997) (grace period for first PCRA petitions filed after 1995 amendments)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (sentencing and constitutional-right discussion; cited by petitioner but abandoned on appeal)