Com. v. Williams, R.
215 A.3d 1019
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Robert Williams was convicted after a non-jury trial (2008) based solely on testimony and a search-warrant affidavit from former Ptl. Reginald Graham; sentenced Jan. 16, 2009. Williams did not file a direct appeal from that conviction.
- Williams remained on probation; after multiple violations his probation was revoked and he received a 2–4 year prison sentence on Nov. 6, 2017; he appealed the revocation and sentence.
- While that revocation appeal was pending, Williams filed a PCRA petition (Feb. 14, 2018) alleging newly discovered evidence of Graham’s misconduct and corruption, which undermined Graham’s credibility as the Commonwealth’s sole trial witness.
- The Commonwealth and Williams stipulated to numerous facts, including that Graham was the only trial witness and that internal investigations concluded Graham engaged in theft and lying; the Commonwealth ultimately conceded Williams should receive a new trial.
- The PCRA court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing; the Superior Court reversed, finding the PCRA petition timely under the newly discovered facts exception and that after-discovered evidence entitled Williams to a new trial. The Court also ordered reassignment to a different trial judge on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a PCRA petition while an appeal of probation revocation is pending renders the petition a nullity | Filing while revocation appeal pending did not bar a PCRA challenge to the underlying 2008 conviction because revocation does not alter the original judgment for purposes of finality | The Commonwealth did not contest that the PCRA could proceed as to the original conviction | Court: Williams was not precluded from filing the PCRA petition while the revocation appeal was pending (Anderson framework applies) |
| Whether the untimely PCRA petition satisfied a timeliness exception (newly discovered facts) | Williams argued he only recently learned of Graham’s misconduct (disclosures/publicity in 2018) and thus satisfied §9545(b)(1)(ii) plus the 60-day filing requirement | Commonwealth agreed the newly discovered facts exception applied | Court: PCRA court’s finding that Williams satisfied the newly discovered facts exception was upheld |
| Whether after-discovered evidence (Graham-related affidavits and official records) entitled Williams to a new trial under the four Pagan/Mount factors | Williams argued affidavits and misconduct findings are noncumulative, not solely impeachment, and would likely produce a different verdict because Graham was the sole inculpatory witness | Commonwealth effectively conceded it would not rely on Graham at retrial and agreed relief was appropriate | Court: Williams met all four elements (couldn’t be discovered earlier; not cumulative; not solely impeachment; likely different verdict) — new trial granted |
| Whether a different trial judge should be assigned on remand given prior exposure to Graham’s testimony | Williams sought reassignment to avoid appearance of unfairness because the original judge made credibility findings based on Graham | Commonwealth agreed reassignment was appropriate to avoid impartiality concerns | Court: Remand must proceed before a different trial judge; reassignment ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Leslie, 757 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PCRA petitions ordinarily filed after direct appeal rights exhausted)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 788 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 2001) (probation revocation does not alter finality for challenges to the original sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (distinguishing newly discovered facts exception from after-discovered-evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (four-factor after-discovered-evidence test for new-trial relief)
- Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961 (Pa. 2018) (meaning of "merely corroborative or cumulative" in after-discovered-evidence context)
- Commonwealth v. Mount, 257 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1969) (material false or discredited testimony by an essential witness may warrant a new trial)