238 A.3d 1267
Pa.2020Background
- In 1983 Elwood Small was convicted (joint trial with Larry Bell) of second-degree murder, robbery, aggravated assault; Small received life plus additional terms.
- Small filed multiple unsuccessful PCRA petitions; in 2014 (pro se) he claimed newly discovered facts based on a 1998 Superior Court opinion referencing Bell’s post-conviction testimony.
- The PCRA court (after appointing pro bono counsel who obtained Bell’s 1993 PCRA hearing transcripts) found Bell’s post-conviction testimony revealed newly discovered, exculpatory facts and granted Small a new trial in 2017.
- The Superior Court reversed, invoking the longstanding “public record presumption” (publicly available materials are not “unknown”) and noting Small had periods of prior representation, rendering his petition untimely.
- The Supreme Court disavowed the public record presumption as inconsistent with the PCRA’s text, but affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment because Bell’s 1993 testimony was materially consistent with his trial testimony and thus not an “unknown” fact that would satisfy the time-bar exception.
Issues
| Issue | Small (Plaintiff) | Commonwealth (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the courts should retain the “public record presumption” that public materials cannot be “unknown” for §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Abolish presumption as extra-statutory and inconsistent with PCRA language; courts should assess petitioner’s actual knowledge and access | Preserve presumption to protect finality and treat public records as discoverable by represented petitioners | Supreme Court disavowed the public record presumption; it is overruled |
| Whether Burton (which limited the presumption for pro se prisoners) applies to Small given prior periods of representation | Burton applies because Small was pro se when filing and had limited access in prison; he should benefit from Burton’s approach | Burton inapplicable because Small had prior counsel during portions of his post-conviction history | Court deemed Burton’s narrow rule unnecessary after overruling the presumption; outcome turned on facts (Small fails on merits) |
| Whether Bell’s 1993 PCRA testimony constituted “facts . . . unknown to the petitioner” (newly discovered facts) | Transcripts added a new account and motive (claim that Small ‘‘flipped out’’ and that motive existed), so facts were unknown until transcripts obtained | 1993 testimony materially consistent with trial testimony and motive; nothing newly unknown to Small | Court held the record shows Bell’s 1993 testimony was materially consistent with his trial testimony; therefore not an “unknown” fact for §9545(b)(1)(ii) |
| Whether Small exercised due diligence and complied with the then-60-day filing window after discovering the facts | Acted diligently (searched, requested transcripts, sought help); the 60-day clock began upon receipt of transcripts in 2017 | Small discovered the Superior Court opinion in 2013 but did not file within 60 days; failure to comply with time limits | Court did not rely on the public-record timing issue because Small failed the “unknown” prong; Superior Court affirmed for lack of a timely, newly discovered fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (held public-record presumption does not apply to pro se prisoner petitioners; courts must assess petitioner’s actual knowledge and access)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (earlier source of the public record presumption; relied on in subsequent cases)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (rejected rigid public-record presumption where petitioner lacked practical access; emphasized case-specific inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 A.3d 949 (Pa. 2018) (addressed due diligence in context of prior representation; fact-specific analysis)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (sets elements for after-discovered-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848 (Pa. 2005) (discusses relation of timeliness exceptions to merits in after-discovered-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (applied public record presumption pre-Burton)