Com. v. Vincent, M.
3496 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Mark Vincent was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder, robbery, and weapons offenses; life sentence imposed and conviction affirmed on direct appeal (final in 2000).
- Vincent filed a first PCRA petition in 2002 which was denied and affirmed on appeal; he filed a second pro se PCRA petition on February 12, 2016.
- The second petition relied on an affidavit from William Adams, who claimed he witnessed Kenneth Billie (aka Kenneth Hall) shoot the victim while aiming at Vincent.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2016 petition as untimely, finding Vincent had not exercised due diligence in discovering Adams and therefore could not invoke the newly-discovered-facts exception to the PCRA time bar.
- Vincent appealed, arguing he lacked prior knowledge of Adams or the other eyewitnesses and could not have discovered Adams’s identity earlier; he also argued the PCRA court applied an overly stringent diligence standard.
- The Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding Vincent satisfied the newly-discovered-facts exception and that a merits hearing on the after-discovered evidence claim was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Vincent's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition invoking the newly-discovered-facts exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) was timely | Vincent: Adams’s affidavit revealed facts unknown to him and not discoverable earlier through due diligence; petition filed within 60 days of learning the facts | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Vincent failed to show he exercised due diligence; evidence of other eyewitnesses meant he should have discovered Adams earlier | Held: Vincent met §9545(b)(1)(ii); facts were unknown and could not have been ascertained earlier through due diligence; petition not time-barred and remand for merits hearing ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; appellate standard for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (standards for newly-discovered-facts exception and due diligence under §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal/no-merit letter in post-conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel withdrawal/no-merit letter in post-conviction proceedings)