Commonwealth v. Brandon
51 A.3d 231
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Brandon was convicted of third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy for an August 20, 1988 incident in which he struck the victim with a baseball bat; the victim had been shot earlier and died from injuries.
- Brandon was sentenced to life imprisonment; his direct appeal was affirmed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review in 1992.
- Brandon filed his fourth PCRA petition on February 3, 2011; the PCRA court dismissed it as untimely on September 12, 2011.
- The asserted timeliness issues centered on 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii-iii) (newly discovered facts and after-recognized rights) and related 60-day filing requirements.
- Brandon relied on Barton-Martin and Melendez-Diaz to argue newly discovered facts and retroactive rights excused the time bar.
- The court held Barton-Martin is not a newly discovered fact and Melendez-Diaz is not retroactively applicable on collateral review; Brandon remained untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 9545(b)(1)(ii-iii)? | Brandon claims Barton-Martin/Melendez-Diaz save timely filing. | Commonwealth argues petition untimely and exceptions not met. | Untimely; exceptions not satisfied. |
| Merits review of untimely petition? | PCRA court erred by merits analysis on an untimely petition. | Merits analysis not warranted; timeliness controls. | Timeliness governs; no merits review due. |
| Confrontation Clause impact of autopsy testimony? | Sixth Amendment requires the pathologist who performed the autopsy testify. | Brandon cross-examined the pathologist; testimony did not violate Crawford/Melendez-Diaz. | No Confrontation Clause violation; cross-examination available and proper testimony occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa.Super.2010) (scope of review for PCRA orders requires supported findings and no legal error)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 562 Pa. 70, 753 A.2d 780 (2000) (timeliness exceptions and 60-day filing rule for 9545(b))
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 A.2d 1157 (2003) (timeliness is jurisdictional in PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 61 Pa.3d 986-87, 23 A.3d 980 (Pa. 2011) (new decisional law is not a new fact under 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super.2007) (60-day clock starts from underlying judicial decision)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 789 A.2d 728 (Pa.Super.2001) (ignorance of law not excusing late filing)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (pretrial lab certificates; confrontation right; testimonial evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination for testimonial statements)
- Commonwealth v. Leggett, 16 A.3d 1144 (Pa.Super.2011) (Melendez-Diaz not retroactive on collateral review)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007) (Crawford does not apply retroactively to final state convictions)
- Barton-Martin, 5 A.3d 363 (Pa.Super.2010) (applies Melendez-Diaz; not a new fact)