Commonwealth v. Mitchell, W., Aplt., 141 A.3d 1277

Mitchell was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the September 10, 1997 murder of his estranged wife, Robin Little; he also pleaded guilty to related sexual-assault charges.
At trial, witness Sheila Britton testified she received two calls from Mitchell around the murder: one where he threatened to kill Little and a later call in which he said “Robin Little is no more.”
Post-conviction, Mitchell alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview Britton and thereby discover impeachment evidence about how and when she recalled those calls.
During PCRA litigation, an affidavit from a federal defender reported that Britton later said she initially went "blank" when questioned on the morning after the murder and only recalled the calls after going to bed; she allegedly told a social worker and later police about that memory process.
Mitchell’s first PCRA petition raised ineffective-assistance claims and was denied; this appeal concerns a second, untimely PCRA petition filed in 2015 asserting the Britton-related material constituted a "newly-discovered fact" excusing the PCRA time bar.
The PCRA court and this Court concluded the prior PCRA court’s credibility-based finding (that Britton would not have volunteered those details to trial counsel) is not a newly-discovered fact that could satisfy the statutory exception; the second petition was untimely and dismissed without a hearing.

Issue	Mitchell's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the second PCRA petition is timely under the PCRA's "newly-discovered fact" exception	The PCRA court's earlier conclusion (that Britton would not have told trial counsel the manner of her recollection) is a "fact" unknown before and therefore triggers the 60‑day exception	The underlying facts (Britton's statements about how she remembered the calls) were known in 2008; recharacterizing a prior court's legal/conclusory ruling does not create a new fact	Court held the prior credibility/legal conclusion is not a newly-discovered fact; petition untimely and jurisdiction lacking
Whether Britton-related material constitutes after-discovered evidence meriting a new trial on substantive grounds	The Britton statements undermine her credibility and would have been exculpatory or impactful on verdict	Even without Britton’s impeachment detail, overwhelming inculpatory evidence existed; moreover, the after-discovered evidence exception was not properly invoked to excuse timeliness	Court did not reach the substantive after-discovered-evidence merits because petition was untimely
Whether dismissal without a hearing was improper	Mitchell argued he was entitled to a timeliness and merits hearing	Commonwealth argued court lacked jurisdiction because petition was untimely and no exception applied	Court affirmed dismissal without an evidentiary hearing due to lack of jurisdiction

Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (a prior counsel-ineffectiveness conclusion is not a "newly-discovered fact" to evade PCRA time limits)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (distinguishes the "newly-discovered fact" exception to PCRA timeliness from substantive "after-discovered evidence")
Commonwealth v. Ali, 86 A.3d 173 (Pa. 2014) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and exceptions are narrowly construed)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 902 A.2d 430 (Pa. 2006) (direct-appeal opinion underlying the case)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2014) (opinion affirming denial of Mitchell’s first PCRA petition; addresses Britton testimony and credibility)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA filing periods are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling)
Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (PCRA petitions may be dismissed without evidentiary hearing when no genuine issue of material fact exists)