Commonwealth v. Davis
86 A.3d 883
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Clarence R. Davis was convicted in 1972 of first‑degree murder and robbery for a 1970 bar robbery/homicide and sentenced to life; Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed in 1974.
- Davis filed numerous post‑conviction petitions; the instant PCRA petition was filed pro se in May 2008 (a second/subsequent petition) after he received an affidavit from trial witness Jerome Watson recanting trial testimony.
- Watson’s March 6, 2008 affidavit said he fabricated a confession attributed to Davis; a later Watson affidavit (July 24, 2011) alleged the Commonwealth coerced and rewarded his trial testimony. Davis also obtained Michael Diggs’ sentencing transcript suggesting a cooperation agreement with the Commonwealth.
- The PCRA court dismissed Davis’s petition as untimely, reasoning the proofs of deals were part of public sentencing records that Davis could have discovered earlier with due diligence.
- The Superior Court held Davis filed within 60 days of receiving Watson’s affidavit and found his post‑affidavit investigations (obtaining Watson’s and Diggs’ sentencing transcripts) satisfied due diligence, invoking PCRA time exceptions for governmental interference and newly discovered facts; the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to Watson/Diggs deal and recantation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Davis' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCRA petition | Petition timely under exceptions because Watson’s recantation and evidence of deals were newly discovered; filed within 60 days of affidavit | Petition untimely—sentencing transcripts were public record and discoverable earlier; no exception applies | Held for Davis: exceptions (gov't interference and newly discovered facts) apply; petition not jurisdictionally barred |
| Due diligence requirement | Davis acted diligently after receiving Watson affidavit and could not have obtained proof earlier | Davis should have discovered sentencing transcripts earlier via public records search | Held for Davis: diligence adequate because trial testimony denied deals, and Davis reasonably relied on Watson’s affidavit to prompt transcript searches |
| Sufficiency of evidence to invoke exceptions | Watson’s affidavits plus Diggs’ sentencing transcript show concealed deals and recantation | argues underlying merits irrelevant to timeliness; also contests sufficiency | Held: factual showing sufficient to invoke §9545(b)(1)(i) and (ii); merits to be tested at evidentiary hearing |
| Scope of remand | Requests broad review of Brady and other claims | PCRA court limited to timeliness/recantation/deal claims | Held: Remand limited to Watson’s recantation and withheld deals as to Watson and Diggs; other claims not shown timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 455 Pa. 466, 317 A.2d 218 (Pa. 1974) (affirming Davis’s convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; exceptions required to invoke review)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 598 Pa. 85, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. 2006) (testimony at public sentencing hearing is a matter of public record)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 592 Pa. 217, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (due diligence is fact‑specific and does not require perfect vigilance)
- Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (finality rule for judgment of sentence under PCRA)