Commonwealth v. Johnston
42 A.3d 1120
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- David and Norman Johnston filed second pro se PCRA petitions, which the PCRA court dismissed on June 30, 2011 for lack of jurisdiction.
- The petitions sought relief based on Brady materials and other withheld evidence allegedly discovered after trial and in a 2009 book.
- The court addressed whether the petitions were timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) and whether exceptions applied to toll the one-year deadline.
- Appellants argued that the 2009 book contained four pieces of new evidence that were previously unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence.
- The court concluded that the asserted Brady information was not newly discovered facts and that the evidence presented would be merely cumulative, not qualifying under § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
- Because the timeliness exception was not satisfied, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant discovery or consider the merits of the petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §9545(b)(1)(ii) for Brady claims | Johnston argues the 2009 book reveals new, undiscoverable Brady facts. | Commonwealth contends the facts were not unknown and were discoverable earlier; claims do not meet the exception. | Timeliness exception not satisfied; petitions untimely. |
| Discovery of Brady materials | Discovery is needed to prove the new Brady material and identify the alcohol depicted in the photo. | Exception not shown and timeliness bar bars discovery; jurisdiction lacking to entertain discovery. | PCRA discovery denied due to lack of jurisdiction from untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219 (Pa. 2008) (timeliness exception does not require merits analysis for § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (focus on newly discovered facts, not new sources)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 863 A.2d 423 (Pa. 2004) (new conduit for claim does not fall within § 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714 (Pa. 2008) (three components of Brady violation; distinguish new facts from new sources)
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 741 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 1999) (jurisdictional timeliness rules strict; discovery issues framed by timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (timeliness/exceptions framework for PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (timeliness and discovery context in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2007) (standard for review of PCRA orders; evidence sufficiency in timing disputes)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 1284 (Pa.Sup. 2008) (PCRA timeliness exceptions analyzed in §9545(b)(1)(ii))