Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 69 A.3d 1270

Background

Feliciano was convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life; direct appeal affirmed, Supreme Court denied review in 1998.
He filed three PCRA petitions: 1999 (denied), 2001 (denied as untimely), and 2012 (instant petition alleging ineffective assistance for not conveying a plea offer).
The 2012 petition claimed trial counsel failed to disclose a January 1993 plea offer (10–20 years) and that discovery of the offer occurred in 1999; petition argued this fell under 9545(b)(1)(iii) retroactive recognition of a new right.
PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice on June 5, 2012 and dismissed the petition as untimely on June 28, 2012; petitioner did not respond before dismissal but later argued preservation and timeliness issues.
Appellant asserted 9545(b)(1)(iii) based on Frye and Lafler as creating a new right for plea-bargaining counsel, and challenged the handling of his Rule 907 responses and later-discovered-evidence argument under 9545(b)(1)(h).
Court held the petition was untimely; Frye/Lafler did not create a new retroactive right, they applied existing Strickland/guidance to plea negotiations; the timeliness exceptions were not satisfied or properly preserved; the after-discovered-evidence claim was not preserved and Lopez is dispositive on public-record prior-discovery implications.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition was timely under 9545(b)(1)	Feliciano contends 9545(b)(1)(iii) and 9545(b)(2) permit his timely claim.	The petition is patently untimely since judgment became final in 1998.	Untimely; no valid 9545(b)(1) exception established.
Whether Frye/Lafler create a new retroactive right under 9545(b)(1)(iii)	Frye and Lafler confer a new right to effective counsel that excuses timeliness.	Frye/Lafler do not create a new right; they apply Strickland to plea negotiations.	Not preserved as a new timeliness exception; not applicable.
Whether due process/equal protection requires considering Rule 907 responses	Responses filed timely under prisoner mailbox rule should have been considered before dismissal.	The court reviewed the responses; prejudice shown insufficient.	No due process/prejudice shown; court properly rejected before dismissal.
Whether after‑discovered evidence/Disciplinary Board materials save the petition under 9545(b)(1)(h)	Wallace affidavit shows discovery of counsel’s disciplinary proceedings; merits relief.	Publicly available information and public record do not render facts unknowable; evidence insufficient for relief.	Not preserved and, even if, would not entitle relief per Lopez.
Whether the prison mailbox rule affects timeliness of the responses	Rule 907 responses timely under mailbox rule; should be deemed filed earlier.	Record shows responses evaluated but timing did not save untimeliness.	Preservation not established; timeliness not saved.

Key Cases Cited

Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (applied to plea negotiations; not a new right)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice framework for rejected plea offers)
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 616 Pa. 570, 51 A.3d 195 (Pa. 2012) (public-record discovery of counsel misconduct does not toll time-bar)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (counsel conduct and knowability of information in public record)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2012) (added Strickland-based element for meriting relief)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (ineffective assistance standard in guilty-plea context)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (requirement of competent counsel for plea decisions)
Commonwealth v. Owens, 718 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1998) (timeliness finality under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. LiGons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (jurisdictional nature of PCRA time limits)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (burden to plead/t prove timeliness exceptions)