Commonwealth v. Brown
111 A.3d 171
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant Gene Brown was convicted of first-degree murder in 2001 for shooting the Victim; sentenced to life imprisonment. Physical and forensic evidence tied fatal bullets to Brown’s shots, not to another shooter.
- At trial eyewitness Daron Freeman testified for the Commonwealth; Brown testified he acted in self-defense and claimed a prior robbery attempt by Victim and that Victim reached toward his waistband during the incident.
- Brown filed a pro se second PCRA petition in March 2014 alleging "newly discovered evidence": Freeman had told Brown (after trial) that he heard Victim curse and saw Victim reach toward his waistband before shots were fired.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice and ultimately dismissed the petition as untimely, concluding Brown failed to satisfy the PCRA time‑bar exception for newly discovered facts and also questioned the evidentiary effect of Freeman’s declaration.
- Brown appealed, arguing (1) the Freeman declaration was timely filed under the mailbox rule and (2) the new statements would support a self‑defense theory or at least a lesser conviction; he also raised a claim about appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely via the §9545(b)(1)(ii) "new facts" exception | Brown argued Freeman’s post‑trial declaration constitutes newly discovered facts excusing untimeliness and was timely filed under the mailbox rule | Court: petition filed ~10 years after judgment; Brown failed to plead/prove facts were unknown and that he exercised due diligence to discover them | Denied — petition untimely; Brown failed to establish §9545(b)(1)(ii) jurisdictional exception |
| Whether Freeman’s declaration satisfied due diligence requirement | Brown: Freeman withheld info due to family ties; Brown only learned of it in 2014 and could not have discovered earlier | Court: Freeman was present at the scene and testified at trial; Brown did not attempt to question or contact Freeman earlier; mere reluctance of Freeman’s disclosure does not excuse lack of diligence | Denied — Brown failed to explain why he could not have discovered Freeman’s account earlier |
| Whether the petition raised a substantive after‑discovered‑evidence claim that would change the verdict | Brown: Freeman’s statements would support self‑defense and could alter verdict or reduce charge | Court: even accepting Freeman’s declaration, physical/forensic evidence (fatal chest wounds; bullets not from another gun) and Brown’s trial admissions weigh against a different outcome; court also conflated jurisdictional and merits analyses | Not reached on merits due to lack of jurisdiction; court found Freeman’s statements unlikely to compel different verdict |
| Right to appointed counsel on second or subsequent PCRA petition | Brown sought counsel for his second PCRA petition | Court: appointment of counsel is required only if petitioner demonstrates indigence and that an evidentiary hearing is required; because petition was dismissed as untimely, no entitlement to counsel was established | Not reached substantively; claim unresolved because petition lacked jurisdictional basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 12 A.3d 477 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (no power to reach merits when timeliness exceptions not met)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (§9545(b)(1)(ii) requires proof facts were unknown and due diligence to discover them)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must explain why facts could not have been learned earlier)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (focus of new‑facts exception is newly discovered facts, not a new source for known facts)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (elements of substantive after‑discovered‑evidence claim)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 947 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by record)