Commonwealth v. Burton
121 A.3d 1063
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- In 1993 Shawn Burton was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy; sentenced to life. Co-defendant Melvin Goodwine was convicted only of conspiracy and acquitted of murder.
- Burton’s direct appeals concluded in 1997; his judgment of sentence became final November 13, 1997. His second PCRA petition was filed July 11, 2013, well beyond the one-year deadline.
- In May 2013 Burton received a letter from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project enclosing Goodwine’s July 2009 motion to expunge, in which Goodwine claimed he killed the victim in self-defense and had been advised not to testify at trial.
- Burton invoked the PCRA "after-discovered facts" exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) and filed within 60 days after receiving the Innocence Project letter; the PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely without an evidentiary hearing.
- The en banc Superior Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding the record insufficient to resolve whether Burton exercised due diligence and adopting a limited exception to the public-records presumption for pro se, incarcerated petitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burton satisfied the after-discovered-facts timeliness exception (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii)) | Burton: He did not know Goodwine’s 2009 filings until the Innocence Project letter in May 2013 and filed within 60 days, so the exception applies | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Goodwine’s motion was a public record in 2009; Burton should have discovered it earlier and thus his claim is untimely | Court: Remanded for an evidentiary hearing — record insufficient; Burton may qualify for the exception because he was pro se and the public-records presumption may not apply without proof of access |
| Scope of the public-records rule for timeliness | Burton: Public records can be "unknown" to a pro se, incarcerated petitioner who lacks access; receipt of the Innocence Project letter triggered filing period | Commonwealth: Public records are objectively knowable; petitioner must file within 60 days of public disclosure regardless of pro se status | Court: Holds presumption of access to public-domain information does not automatically apply to pro se petitioners; rejects a bright-line bar and requires fact-based inquiry |
| Level of due diligence required to invoke § 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Burton: Due diligence satisfied because the Innocence Project letter triggered his investigation and he filed promptly | Commonwealth: Due diligence requires routine searching of public records; Burton offered no steps showing earlier diligence | Court: Reiterates due diligence is fact-specific and requires reasonable efforts (not perfect vigilance); remand for factfinding to test diligence |
| Whether dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was appropriate | Burton: Credibility of his receipt of the Innocence Project letter and his lack of prior knowledge require a hearing | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Dismissal appropriate because Goodwine’s motion was public in 2009 and Burton failed to act within 60 days | Court: Vacated dismissal; held summary denial premature because credibility and access issues must be resolved at an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (recognized access limits to public records for pro se prisoners where counsel abandoned client)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa.Super. 2011) (due diligence requires reasonable steps by petitioner to protect interests; strict enforcement)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 86 A.3d 883 (Pa.Super. 2014) (due diligence is fact-specific; an affidavit can trigger investigation and excuse broader public-record searches)
- Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (petitioner’s lack of access and the unique facts can make public information effectively unknown)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (public-records are generally not "unknown"; publicly filed materials do not usually satisfy after-discovered-facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (defines reasonableness standard for due diligence inquiry)