185 A.3d 1055
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- In 1983 Robert E. Robinson pled guilty to second-degree murder and conspiracy for a 1982 killing; he received life plus concurrent terms. His conviction and sentence became final decades earlier.
- In 2015 Robinson filed an untimely PCRA petition alleging trial counsel Richard Michaelson was using cocaine around the time of Robinson’s plea, which rendered the plea involuntary.
- Robinson’s 2015 petition relied on newly-obtained materials (a 1994 federal plea transcript and related newspaper articles) showing Michaelson admitted long-term cocaine use and pleaded guilty to drug offenses in the 1990s.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, but addressed the merits by finding Michaelson’s later drug offenses could not have affected a 1983 plea.
- A Superior Court panel found the PCRA court erred by reaching the merits and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Robinson satisfied the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) “unknown facts/due diligence” exception; the Commonwealth sought en banc review.
- The en banc Superior Court agreed the PCRA court improperly considered merits, but affirmed dismissal on the alternative ground that Robinson failed to exercise due diligence in discovering the facts earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to determine if Robinson met the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception for an untimely PCRA petition | Robinson: He first learned of counsel’s relevant misconduct in 2014/2015 (via a fellow inmate and obtaining the 1994 plea transcript), so his 2015 petition was within 60 days and satisfied the "unknown facts" exception | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Facts of counsel’s misconduct were publicly available earlier; Robinson failed to show due diligence in discovering them decades before | Court: Remand for a hearing was not required because Robinson failed to establish due diligence; dismissal affirmed on that alternative ground |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by analyzing the merits in deciding timeliness | Robinson: Court should not consider merits when determining jurisdictional timeliness exception | Commonwealth: Agreed the PCRA court erred to the extent it assessed merits during timeliness inquiry | Court: Agreed the PCRA court improperly considered merits, but error was harmless because petition fails for lack of due diligence |
| Effect of Burton on constructive knowledge of public-record facts for incarcerated pro se petitioners | Robinson: Burton prevents presuming he knew of the 1994 public record; so he was not required to file earlier | Commonwealth: Burton does not relieve a petitioner of the duty to exercise due diligence to discover facts supporting an ineffectiveness/invalid-plea claim | Court: Burton does not change the due diligence requirement; petitioner still must take reasonable steps to protect his interests |
| Whether, even if facts were true, they could lead to relief on plea-voluntariness claim | Robinson: Counsel’s drug use at the time of plea would show counsel’s advice was constitutionally deficient | Commonwealth: Later drug convictions alone do not prove deficient or unreasonable advice at plea | Court: Observed that even if drug use were proven, petitioner still must show counsel’s advice fell below objective reasonableness; noted doubts that proved drug use would necessarily entitle relief (affirmed dismissal on due diligence grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment juvenile-sentencing precedent relied on in a separate PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (§ 9545(b)(1)(ii) requires unknown "facts" plus exercise of due diligence; does not itself require after-discovered-evidence showing)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (courts must avoid merits analysis during timeliness inquiry; failure to show due diligence may independently justify dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617 (Pa. 2017) (identified what qualifies as newly discovered facts and recognized the relevance of the underlying claim in framing the timeliness inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (publicly available materials are not presumptively known to an incarcerated pro se petitioner)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (guilty-plea ineffective assistance standard: plea involuntariness requires showing counsel's advice was not within objective competence)