Commonwealth v. Shiloh
170 A.3d 553
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Lisa Lee Shiloh was convicted by jury on Feb. 1, 2011 of multiple drug-related charges and sentenced to an aggregate 14–30 years; no direct appeal was filed.
- She filed multiple PCRA petitions; after earlier petitions were denied and appeals dismissed, Shiloh filed a serial pro se PCRA petition on June 23, 2016, asserting a timeliness exception.
- Shiloh relied on an April 26, 2016 affidavit from her sister, Stacy Stitely, stating Trooper O’Shea promised to help Stitely obtain a deal in exchange for cooperation/testimony at Shiloh’s trial.
- Stitely’s August 22, 2011 guilty-plea transcript (public record) showed the Commonwealth recommended a lenient sentence based in part on her cooperation and testimony; at trial Stitely had denied any deal.
- The PCRA court dismissed Shiloh’s petition as untimely; the Superior Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the alleged promise was unknown to Shiloh, whether it could have been learned earlier with due diligence, and to assess Shiloh’s access to public records in light of Burton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA’s timeliness bar can be overcome under §9545(b)(1)(ii) ("newly-discovered fact") based on Stitely’s affidavit | Shiloh: Stitely’s affidavit reveals a previously unknown promise/deal that she could not have discovered earlier despite due diligence | Commonwealth/PCRA court: Stitely’s plea transcript and docket are public records; information was or should have been knowable, so petition is untimely | Court: Remanded for evidentiary hearing to decide if the alleged promise was unknown to Shiloh and whether it could have been discovered earlier with due diligence; cannot resolve on record alone |
| Whether the public‑record presumption bars Shiloh’s claim or whether Burton requires individualized inquiry for a pro se incarcerated petitioner | Shiloh: As a pro se incarcerated petitioner she lacked practical access to public records and thus the public‑record presumption should not automatically apply | Commonwealth: Public records (docket/transcript) show Stitely’s cooperation and sentence recommendation | Held: Burton removes the automatic public‑record presumption for pro se incarcerated petitioners; court must determine petitioner’s actual knowledge, due diligence, and access — a hearing may be required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (explains scope of §9545(b)(1)(ii) as the "newly-discovered fact" exception)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (holds public‑record presumption does not apply automatically to pro se incarcerated PCRA petitioners; requires inquiry into actual access and diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (petitioner must explain why facts could not have been learned earlier with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (public‑record presumption generally precludes treating public information as "unknown")
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa.Super. 2001) (due diligence requires reasonable efforts to uncover facts supporting collateral relief)
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness of PCRA is jurisdictional; exceptions must be timely invoked)