Com. v. Thompson, W., Com. v. Thompson, W. No. 935 WDA 2016

William G. Thompson was convicted by a jury of three counts of criminal homicide and related offenses in 2005 and sentenced to life without parole. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2013–2016 Thompson filed multiple post-conviction petitions, including a pro se petition under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1 seeking DNA testing of a pair of Nike sneakers seized from his apartment and used at trial.
The PCRA court denied the DNA-testing petition on May 16, 2016; Thompson filed a pro se notice of appeal that was docketed later, and the Superior Court declined to quash the appeal because the record did not show proper service of the PCRA order.
Thompson argued DNA testing of the sneakers would exculpate him by showing the shoes did not belong to him and thus establish his actual innocence.
The PCRA court concluded the requested DNA testing could only identify who wore the shoes and, even if exculpatory, would not create a reasonable possibility of establishing Thompson’s actual innocence in light of other strong inculpatory evidence (eyewitness ID, admissions, phone records, witness statements).
The Superior Court affirmed, holding Thompson failed to meet § 9543.1’s prima facie requirement that DNA testing, if exculpatory, would reasonably establish actual innocence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA court erred in denying § 9543.1 DNA testing of the seized sneakers	Thompson: DNA testing would show the shoes were not his, providing exculpatory evidence and establishing actual innocence	Commonwealth: Even if testing excluded Thompson, results would only identify who wore the shoes and would not overcome other strong evidence tying Thompson to the shootings	Denied — Thompson failed to show a reasonable possibility that exculpatory DNA results would establish his actual innocence under § 9543.1
Whether the appeal should be quashed as untimely due to late docketing of Thompson’s notice of appeal	Thompson: Appealed; prison mailbox postmark supports timely filing	Commonwealth/PCRA court: Notice was docketed after the 30‑day rule	Court did not quash appeal because the record lacked proof of proper service of the PCRA order, and the prisoner mailbox rule supported treating the filing as timely

Commonwealth v. Davis, 867 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Rule 114 requires docket entries to show date and manner of service)
Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249 (Pa. 2002) (notice and service requirements of Rule 114 are mandatory)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prisoner mailbox rule for deemed filing date)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (appeal by pro se prisoner deemed filed when deposited with prison authorities)
Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995) (extraordinary circumstances and extension of filing period)
Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standards for § 9543.1 DNA testing petitions)
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 875 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinguishing DNA-testing petitions from other PCRA claims)
Commonwealth v. Weeks, 831 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2003) (DNA testing may enable later PCRA exception filings but does not itself create an exception)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 889 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 2005) (applicant must show reasonable possibility that testing would demonstrate actual innocence)
Commonwealth v. Small, 980 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2009) (PCRA court credibility findings are binding when supported by the record)