Commonwealth v. Jones
54 A.3d 14
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellant convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for ordering a rival gang member’s murder; direct appeal upheld and multiple PCRA/habeas denials followed.
- Appellant pursued federal habeas discovery; federal court ordered production and documents were provided in May 2005.
- Appellant filed third PCRA petition on July 18, 2005 alleging newly discovered evidence via the federal discovery and governmental interference.
- PCRA court dismissed as untimely; this Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of timely filing.
- Judgment of sentence became final on October 7, 1996; petition filed over nine years later, triggering the 9545(b) time-bar unless an exception applied.
- Court concluded the discovery did not satisfy a timely exception and that the petition was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA petition was timely filed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). | Jones argued discovery amounted to a timely exception to the time-bar. | Jones failed to plead or prove any applicable exception within 60 days. | Untimely; no applicable exception proven. |
| Whether the federal discovery order constitutes government interference under § 9545(b)(1)(i). | Jones contends discovery revealed Brady/constitutional violations and supports an interference exception. | No timely showing that government interference fell within the statutory exception. | Not proven; no timely exception. |
| Whether the PCRA 909 notice was inadequate to inform of dismissal and permit amendment. | Notice insufficient to explain dismissal and to allow amendment. | Notice adequate under Rule 909; merits/untimeliness could not be cured. | Notice adequate; no amendment required. |
| When did the 60-day period to file begin for claims arising from the discovery? | Discovery completed May 19, 2005; petition timely if counted from then. | Time began April 25, 2005 when documents became reviewable; filing due by July 2, 2005. | April 25, 2005 start; July 2, 2005 deadline; petition untimely. |
| Whether the 1995 amendments govern and govern timeliness standards. (Implicit.) | Timeliness governed by post-1995 amendments; petition untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 558 Pa. 313 (1999) (post-1995 amendments govern PCRA timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Howard, 567 Pa. 481 (2002) (timeliness governs; burden on petitioner to plead exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 574 Pa. 724 (2003) (timeliness and exceptions; jurisdictional limits)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1 (2000) (timeliness applies to all PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611 (2002) (burden to plead and prove an exception)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits federal habeas review to record before state court)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) (exhaustion and state-court focus in federal review)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (2002) (federal review respects state court proceedings)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (time of state-court decision for review)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (reasonableness of applying governing legal principle to facts)