Com. v. Watts, T., Com. v. Watts, T. No. 2032 EDA 2016

In 2001 Tracy E. Watts shot and killed Marquis Henson, robbed him, and was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and PIC.
Watts waived direct appeal in exchange for a life-without-parole sentence, formally imposed March 13, 2003.
Watts filed a first PCRA petition (dismissed and affirmed), a habeas petition (denied), and then a second PCRA petition on October 29, 2010 asserting "newly discovered" evidence of trial counsel’s conflict.
The amended PCRA petition alleged counsel had a close relationship with the victim’s father and had agreed to "throw the case;" it did not specify dates when the evidence was discovered.
The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing where two witnesses testified about counsel’s relationship with the victim’s father, counsel denied any conflict, and the court found one witness incredible and the other’s testimony insufficient.
The PCRA court dismissed the second petition on the merits; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Watts failed to plead or prove a statutory timeliness exception and failed to show diligence or credible newly discovered evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Watts)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court)	Held
Whether Watts's second PCRA petition was timely under the PCRA’s "newly discovered evidence" exception	Watts claimed newly discovered evidence of counsel’s conflict of interest justified filing despite the elapsed time	The Commonwealth argued the petition was untimely and that Watts did not plead or prove the 60‑day filing requirement or dates of discovery	Held: Petition was untimely; Watts failed to plead/prove the §9545(b)(1)(ii) exception within 60 days, so no jurisdiction
Whether Watts exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged conflict	Watts implied the evidence only became known later and thus justified late filing	The Commonwealth noted witnesses were close to Watts and could have been consulted earlier; one witness admitted telling Watts earlier	Held: Watts failed to show he could not have obtained the information earlier with reasonable diligence
Whether evidence at the hearing established an actual conflict or counsel’s agreement to "throw the case"	Watts relied on testimony that counsel and the victim’s father were close and that counsel intended to "throw" the case	The Commonwealth pointed to counsel’s denial, witness credibility problems, and lack of corroborating evidence	Held: The hearing testimony was not credible or sufficient to establish an actual conflict; merits did not save the untimely petition

Hackett v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 854 A.2d 489 (Pa. 2004) (courts lack authority to hear untimely PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 824 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (review focuses on whether pleading and proof of a timeliness exception under §9545)
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2013) (petitioner must plead specific facts and dates to show timely invocation of a §9545 exception)
Commonwealth v. Burns, 988 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court may affirm on any correct basis even if not considered below)