Com. v. Troop, J.
478 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- James Earl Troop was convicted by jury in 1988 of multiple robberies and related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 25.5 to 51 years. His direct appeals concluded in 1990.
- Troop filed numerous post-conviction motions and PCRA petitions over the years; the instant (fifth) PCRA petition was filed pro se on December 29, 2016.
- Troop's 2016 petition relied on an excerpt from a 2014 memoir by Detective DiPaolo, which Troop asserted revealed that he was arrested on suspicion long before evidence linked him to the crimes.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss the petition as patently untimely under the PCRA statute of limitations.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition because it was filed more than 26 years after Troop’s judgment became final and Troop failed to invoke a statutory timeliness exception.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding Troop did not meet the 60‑day filing requirement for the newly discovered facts exception and failed to show due diligence in discovering the memoir earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Troop's PCRA petition was timely or qualified for an exception to the one‑year time bar | The memoir by Detective DiPaolo (published 2014) revealed newly discovered facts showing arrest without probable cause; those facts were previously unknown, so the newly discovered‑facts exception applies | Petition was filed over 26 years after final judgment and more than two years after the memoir's publication; Troop did not file within 60 days of discovering the facts and failed to show due diligence | Dismissal affirmed: petition untimely and Troop failed to satisfy the Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception or the 60‑day filing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (explaining newly discovered facts exception requires facts were unknown and could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence)
- Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)
- Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (petitioner must explain why facts could not have been learned earlier with due diligence)
- Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (due diligence requires reasonable steps to protect one’s interests)
- Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076 (strict enforcement of due diligence requirement for newly discovered facts)
- Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (discussing application of newly discovered facts exception)