Commonwealth v. Porter, 35 A.3d 4

Ernest Porter, a death-sentenced prisoner, appeals from a PCRA order denying his Brady claim as untimely and his Atkins petition remained unresolved.
Porter previously pursued Atkins v. Virginia relief; Atkins petition was held in abeyance during federal habeas proceedings and Third Circuit cross-appeals.
In 2006 Porter filed a Brady claim against Gentile with a sixty-day filing deadline under PCRA time-bar exceptions; the Brady petition was treated as a separate serial petition by the PCRA court.
In 2007 the PCRA court denied the Brady petition as time-barred and indicated it would dismiss the petition; Porter appealed the denial.
The Third Circuit stayed the federal cross-appeals pending state court resolution of the Brady claim; this stay delayed final resolution and contributed to state-federal gridlock.
The Court directs the PCRA court to promptly dispose of Porter’s long-pending Atkins petition, while addressing the Brady timing and the broader delay issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Brady claim was a separate petition or an amendment to Atkins	Porter argues Brady was an amendment to Atkins.	Commonwealth argues Brady was a new petition, not an amendment.	Brady treated as a separate petition; final order reviewable
Whether the PCRA court's dismissal of Brady was a final, appealable order	Appeal is from a single petition with two serial claims.	Dismissal of Brady while Atkins abeyance stayed prevents finality	Dispositive order dismissed Brady petition; final and appealable
Whether the Atkins petition could be held in abeyance while Brady and federal cross-appeals proceeded	Abeyance allowed to avoid premature decision and gridlock	Abeyance unsupported; delay is improper	No basis to defer Atkins; direct immediate consideration; hold generally disapproved
Whether Porter’s Brady claim was timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2) and due diligence	Information could not have been discovered earlier; timely under exceptional claim	Gentile information was available with due diligence; untimely	Untimely under § 9545(b)(2); not saved by exceptions
What are the broader implications for finality and delay in capital PCRA proceedings	Delays stem from strategy; need to avoid gridlock	Delay was warranted given complexity and separate proceedings	Affirm PCRA order; direct expeditious handling of Atkins petition; caution against delay strategies

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (stay-and-abey can be appropriate but only for good cause and meritorious/non-meritless claims)
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (amended habeas petitions do not relate back if they assert new grounds for relief)
Duffus, 174 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 1999) (prohibits post-AEDPA amendments adding new, time-barred claims)
Lark, 560 Pa. 487 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA cannot entertain a new petition while a prior petition is under review)
Miller, 585 Pa. 144 (Pa. 2005) (addressed Atkins standard after Miller; Atkins retroactivity considerations)