Commonwealth v. Fennell
180 A.3d 778
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Robert Fennell was convicted in 2006 of kidnapping, aggravated assault, robbery of a motor vehicle, unlawful restraint and criminal conspiracy; sentenced to an aggregate 10–20 years.
- His direct appeals concluded in 2009, making his judgment of sentence final on June 30, 2009.
- Fennell filed three prior PCRA petitions (2007, 2008, 2010) without relief, then filed a fourth pro se PCRA petition on March 19, 2014 claiming a juror lied about a criminal conviction.
- He argued the petition was timely under the PCRA’s newly discovered facts exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)), asserting he obtained the voir dire transcript on December 31, 2013 and the juror’s criminal record on February 14, 2014, and filed within 60 days.
- The PCRA court dismissed the 2014 petition as untimely; a divided Superior Court panel initially reversed and remanded for a hearing, but the case was reheard en banc.
- The en banc Superior Court affirmed dismissal, holding Fennell failed to establish due diligence in discovering the alleged juror misconduct and thus the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to hear the untimely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fennell invoked the PCRA newly discovered facts exception to overcome the one-year time bar | Fennell: He first learned juror #2 lied via voir dire transcript obtained 12/31/2013 and juror criminal history obtained 2/14/2014, so PCRA filed within 60 days | Commonwealth: Fennell had access to voir dire/transcripts earlier and did not act with due diligence; petition therefore untimely | Held: Exception not met; petition untimely and PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Fennell exercised due diligence in obtaining the voir dire transcript and juror history | Fennell: He repeatedly requested files from trial counsel and obtained necessary records only in late 2013/early 2014; sought inmate help to run background check | Commonwealth: Record shows Fennell had or could have obtained voir dire earlier (attached to his 2008 PCRA petition); he delayed contacting available sources and relied on slow inmate assistance | Held: Fennell failed to show due diligence; waiting over a year after being told how to obtain records is not sufficiently diligent |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve conflicting factual assertions | Fennell: Credibility disputes (when he actually obtained transcripts) require an evidentiary hearing | Commonwealth: Certified record refutes Fennell’s claims; hearing unnecessary | Held: No hearing warranted because record refutes petitioner’s allegations and claim is patently untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 35 A.3d 766 (Pa. Super. 2011) (timeliness of PCRA petition is threshold jurisdictional inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 67 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (PCRA timeliness requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 139 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016) (equitable tolling does not apply to PCRA statute; only statutory exceptions extend filing period)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (newly discovered facts exception requires inability to have learned facts earlier with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (petitioner must allege and prove timeliness exception before merits considered)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (no evidentiary hearing required where record refutes petitioner’s allegations)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (no hearing required when claim is patently frivolous or without support)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (failure to raise Rule-based claim on appeal constitutes waiver)