Com. v. Wright, L.
1714 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Wright was convicted by a jury in 2005 of attempted murder, aggravated assault, drug PWID, VUFA §6106, and PIC; sentenced to concurrent terms (20–40 years for attempted murder).
- Direct appeal affirmed by Superior Court in 2007; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance in 2008, so Wright’s judgment became final in August 2008.
- Wright filed multiple prior PCRA petitions (first filed 2008, dismissed; second filed 2011, dismissed); the instant (third) PCRA petition was filed January 8, 2015.
- Wright claimed newly discovered evidence and governmental interference based on Commonwealth witness Joseph Farley’s criminal-docket records and a 2010 letter by Farley suggesting he received leniency in exchange for testimony.
- Wright alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and expose Farley’s full criminal history and alleged a Brady violation for nondisclosure of any deal or benefits to Farley.
- The PCRA court dismissed Wright’s petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b) because his petition was filed well past the one-year deadline and he failed to prove either the newly-discovered-facts or governmental-interference exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Wright: petition timely under newly-discovered-facts or governmental-interference exceptions based on Farley records and letter | Petition was facially untimely; exceptions not met because facts were known or could have been discovered earlier; no proof of official interference or a deal | Court: Petition untimely; exceptions not satisfied; dismissed |
| Newly-discovered-facts exception | Wright: learned of additional docket entries and Farley letter in 2014 that were not disclosed at trial | Trial record and Farley testimony already revealed open cases/probation; Wright was present at trial and raised related issues on direct appeal; lacked due diligence showing | Court: Exception fails—Wright knew or could have learned facts earlier; claim waived |
| Governmental interference / Brady violation | Wright: Commonwealth failed to disclose (1) Farley’s prostitution/solicitation convictions, (2) pending VOP hearings, (3) any deal with Farley | No evidence of an actual agreement; Farley’s status and history were testified to at trial; no proof of nondisclosure or prosecutorial interference | Court: Brady/governmental-interference exception fails; no evidence of undisclosed deal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (timeliness impact) | Wright: counsel ineffective for not investigating Farley’s history and exposing it to jury | Even if counsel were ineffective, ineffectiveness cannot rescue an otherwise untimely PCRA petition absent a time-bar exception | Court: IAC claims do not overcome untimeliness; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard for Brady violations)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (PCRA newly-discovered-facts requires due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (requirements for after-discovered evidence claim)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (ineffectiveness claims do not excuse untimely PCRA filing)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (governmental-interference exception standard)