Com. v. Thomas, M.
Com. v. Thomas, M. No. 2436 EDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 25, 2017Background
- Mustafa C. Thomas filed a second PCRA petition in 2011 challenging his 1995 conviction; his judgment became final in January 1998, so the petition is facially untimely under the PCRA one-year rule.
- While the appeal was pending, the Philadelphia DA’s Conviction Review Unit (CRU) informed defense counsel that it would not oppose remand based on documents indicating the co-defendant Shaurn Thomas’s conviction should be vacated, and that witness William Stallworth recanted portions of his trial testimony.
- Appellant relies principally on two pieces of purportedly "new" evidence: (1) a 1994 Philadelphia Criminalistics Laboratory report (discovered in 2011) concerning a Chevrolet Caprice, and (2) recantation statements by witness William Stallworth (reported to defense in 2011 and again in 2017).
- The Superior Court emphasized that because timeliness is jurisdictional under the PCRA, the PCRA court on remand must first determine whether Appellant proves an exception to the timeliness bar (primarily the "after-discovered fact" exception at 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) before reaching merits.
- The court explained the legal standard for the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception: the fact must have been previously unknown to the petitioner, could not have been learned earlier with due diligence, and the inquiry focuses on the fact itself (not a newly willing source).
- The concurrence narrows the remand: the Criminalistics Report is not a "new fact" because the record already reflected that the blue Caprice was not used; the remand should be limited to whether Stallworth’s statements satisfy the newly discovered-fact exception and, if so, then whether the recantation qualifies as after-discovered evidence entitling relief.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second PCRA petition is timely or fits an exception | The Stallworth recantation and the Criminalistics Report are newly discovered facts excusing untimeliness | Petition is untimely; Commonwealth does not concede substance—only non-opposition to remand; Criminalistics Report was not previously unknown | Remand for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether Appellant meets the §9545(b)(1)(ii) newly discovered-fact exception (only then may merits be reached) |
| Whether the Criminalistics Report is a "new fact" under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Report is exculpatory and was withheld until 2011 (Brady and newly discovered fact) | Record shows Commonwealth told defense at trial that the Caprice was not involved; photographs were excluded; report confirms known fact | Court holds the report is not a previously unknown fact and should not be considered on remand |
| Whether Stallworth’s statements constitute a newly discovered fact justifying remand | Stallworth recanted trial testimony (told investigator in 2011 and CRU in 2017 he was not present), which is new and material | PCRA court previously found investigator declaration hearsay; Commonwealth’s non-opposition to remand unclear on scope | Remand appropriate to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Stallworth’s statements meet the newly discovered-fact exception; if so, then consider merits |
| Scope of evidentiary hearing on remand | Appellant seeks a hearing on merits (actual innocence/after-discovered evidence) | Commonwealth’s non-opposition is limited; timeliness still a threshold issue | Hearing on remand is limited to determining whether Appellant has satisfied the timeliness exception; merits only if jurisdictional threshold is met |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McKeever, 947 A.2d 782 (Pa. Super. 2008) (PCRA petitions must be filed within one year unless an exception applies)
- Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness is a threshold jurisdictional question)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; courts may consider timeliness sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timing requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirements for §9545(b)(1)(ii): unknown facts and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (describing §9545(b)(1)(ii) as a gatekeeping inquiry limited to previously unknown facts)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (distinguishing newly discovered facts from newly discovered sources)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (due diligence requires reasonable efforts tailored to circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (elements required to establish after-discovered evidence merit under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2006) (governmental interference exception and connection to Brady claims)
- Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sworn affidavit not required to secure a PCRA evidentiary hearing)