241 A.3d 452
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Appellant Henry Zabala-Zorilla was convicted by jury (2013) of rape, IDSI, and related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 84½ to 169 years; lifetime SORNA registration was imposed.
- Direct appeal affirmed (2014). Appellant filed a timely first PCRA (2015); it was denied and appellate review concluded in December 2018.
- Appellant filed a pro se second PCRA petition on January 8, 2019, raising (1) a Brady claim that the Commonwealth withheld victim M.C.’s criminal/crimen falsi history and (2) that his SORNA registration is unlawful under Commonwealth v. Muniz.
- Appellant asserted he learned of M.C.’s criminal history from his brother on April 4, 2017 and invoked the PCRA timeliness exceptions for newly discovered facts and newly recognized constitutional rights.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and then dismissed the petition as untimely, concluding Appellant failed to prove either timeliness exception (including that Muniz has been held retroactive).
- This Court affirmed the dismissal, holding Appellant did not show due diligence for the Brady/newly-discovered-fact exception and Muniz has not been held retroactive by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth violated Brady by withholding victim M.C.’s criminal/crimen falsi history | Zabala-Zorilla: M.C.’s prior false-complaint/crimen falsi history was impeaching/improperly withheld; he only learned of it Apr. 4, 2017 | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Petitioner could have discovered public criminal records with due diligence; he fails newly-discovered-fact exception | Denied — petitioner failed to show the facts were unknowable or that he exercised due diligence; timeliness exception not met |
| Whether Muniz renders SORNA registration unconstitutional for petitioner | Zabala-Zorilla: Muniz announced a new constitutional rule invalidating SORNA’s punitive registration and should apply to him | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Even if Muniz announced a new rule, Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not held Muniz retroactive on collateral review | Denied — Muniz has not been held retroactive by the PA Supreme Court; §9545(b)(1)(iii) not satisfied |
| Whether PCRA petition was timely under §9545(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) given pendency of prior PCRA | Zabala-Zorilla: Could not file earlier because his first PCRA was pending; filed second petition promptly after final resolution | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Lark and related authority require timely pleading of exceptions; petitioner did not meet due-diligence or retroactivity requirements | Denied — petition untimely; neither exception adequately pleaded or proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (addressed SORNA and its punitive nature)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional; review standard for PCRA rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (a subsequent PCRA cannot be filed while a prior PCRA appeal is pending before highest state court)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 180 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Muniz does not satisfy §9545(b)(1)(iii) absent a retroactivity holding by PA Supreme Court)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873 (Pa. 2011) (new evidence exception requires showing facts were unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 173 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2017) (held SORNA registration for SVPs unconstitutional — Super. Ct. decision)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 226 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2020) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Super. Ct. decision on SORNA for SVPs)