Com. v. Wallace, T.
423 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- In 1999 a jury convicted Tyree Wallace of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and PIC for the October 27, 1997 killing/robbery of Jhon Su Kang; Wallace received life imprisonment and direct review concluded in 2001.
- Co-defendant Matthew Corprew confessed to police and later pleaded guilty to third-degree murder; his prior statements were admitted at trial (with redactions) and other witnesses placed Wallace at the scene and tied the plan to Wallace and Raheem Shackleford.
- Wallace filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; his fourth PCRA raised newly discovered evidence: two 2007 affidavits from Corprew claiming he acted alone and that Wallace and Shackleford were innocent.
- During litigation of that fourth petition, the Commonwealth produced records showing Corprew had a long history of severe mental illness; a psychiatrist later opined Corprew was delusional and incompetent to testify at a PCRA hearing.
- Wallace later (2013) filed the instant (serial) PCRA petition claiming entitlement to relief based on Corprew’s mental-health history rendering Corprew’s 1998 statements inadmissible; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wallace) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 PCRA petition was timely or met an exception | Wallace argued newly discovered facts (Corprew’s long-standing mental illness) excused untimeliness under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and that he only learned details in 2013 | Commonwealth argued Wallace’s petition was untimely and that Wallace (and his prior PCRA counsel) knew or should have known the facts earlier, so Wallace failed timeliness and 60‑day proof | Court held petition untimely; Wallace failed to plead/prove the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception and did not file within 60 days of learning the facts |
| When the 60‑day window to invoke the timeliness exceptions began to run | Wallace contended he did not personally receive Corprew’s records until 2013 so the 60‑day clock started then | Commonwealth pointed to earlier notice (2010/2011) to Wallace’s PCRA counsel that Corprew suffered mental illness pre-dating his statements; Wallace could have amended earlier | Held that Wallace (through prior PCRA counsel) had notice by 2010/2011; Wallace did not show he acted with due diligence or that the claim was filed within 60 days |
| Whether claims discovered while a prior PCRA was pending required waiting until appeal resolution | Wallace relied on Lark to argue he had to wait until the prior PCRA appeal concluded before filing a new petition | Commonwealth argued Lark only bars filing a subsequent petition while an earlier petition is on appeal if the new facts were discovered during that appeal; here facts were known while the fourth petition remained pending in the PCRA court | Court held Lark did not excuse Wallace: he could have amended the pending petition and seek relief then |
| Whether incompetency of a co-defendant to testify at a later PCRA hearing equates to incompetency at time of the original statement (and supports a new-timeliness claim) | Wallace argued Corprew’s competency findings rendered his 1998 statements unreliable and that this was newly discovered evidence | Commonwealth stressed that the competency finding related to testimony at the PCRA hearing and that Wallace and his counsel had evidence of Corprew’s long history earlier | Court rejected Wallace’s contention as untimely and found no adequate explanation for delay in presenting the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (no jurisdiction to hear untimely PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 566 Pa. 323, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii) requires proof facts were previously unknown and due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal, 596 Pa. 219, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness exception analysis is procedural; merits not required)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (strict enforcement of due diligence and 60‑day filing rule under § 9545(b)(2))
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 560 Pa. 487, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (limitations on filing a subsequent PCRA petition while a prior petition is on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to plead and prove timeliness exception)
- Commonwealth v. Wojtaszek, 951 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for PCRA denial)