Commonwealth v. Perrin
59 A.3d 663
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Appellant Dontez Perrin was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime and sentenced to five to ten years’ imprisonment.
- The crimes occurred during a November 14, 2007 robbery in Bartram Gardens, Philadelphia, where Thompson identified Perry, Jackson, and Perrin as participants.
- A lineup prior to trial failed to clearly identify Perrin; Thompson at trial said Perrin was the third man behind the robbery, with inconsistent identification.
- Perry testified at trial under a cooperation agreement with the federal government, detailing the plan and Perrin’s involvement.
- In June 2011, an FBI interview with Curtis Brown revealed Perry recanted or clarified his trial testimony, suggesting Perrin was not involved.
- Perrin sought post-sentence relief based on after-discovered evidence; the trial court and appellate process led to remand proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to evidentiary hearing/remand for after-discovered evidence | Perrin contends after-discovered evidence meets four-prong test and warrants a new trial. | Commonwealth argues evidence is impeachment-only and may not change outcome. | Remand for evidentiary hearing; judgment vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (remand for hearing on after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 55 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc remand for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (four-prong test for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (four-prong framework for relief)
- Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (application of after-discovered evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 625 A.2d 616 (Pa. 1993) (produci ble and admissible requirement in after-discovered evidence)