Commonwealth v. Smith
35 A.3d 766
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Ronald Smith was convicted in 1994 of first-degree murder, robbery, possessing instrument of crime, and conspiracy, receiving a life sentence plus terms for the other offenses.
- His first PCRA petition was filed in 1997; counsel was appointed and amended petition filed; the PCRA court dismissed in 2000; on appeal, the Superior Court dismissed due to counsel's failure to file a brief.
- Smith's second PCRA petition sought reinstatement of appellate rights nunc pro tunc; the PCRA court granted reinstatement, but the Superior Court quashed the appeal; a per curiam order limited issues to timeliness of the second petition.
- In 2007 Smith filed his third PCRA petition, which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely on February 20, 2009.
- Smith argues that Commonwealth v. Bennett (2007) creates an after-discovered-facts exception to the PCRA time-bar, allowing review of his untimely petition.
- This Court reverses and remands to address the third petition under Bennett, applying an altered, fact-specific timeliness analysis; the majority emphasizes due diligence and Bennett as a new theory/method of relief, while a dissent would affirm the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bennett provides relief as an after-discovered-facts exception | Smith relies on Bennett as new theory of relief under 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Commonwealth contends Bennett does not create a new fact and Watts prohibits treating it as such | Yes; Bennett-created relief applies to Smith's timing issues. |
| Whether the third PCRA petition is timely under 9545(b)(1) and (2) | Smith filed within 60 days of Bennett’s reasoning | Untimely under traditional 9545(b) framework | Timeliness governed by Bennett-based analysis; petition remanded. |
| Whether due diligence and discovery principles were satisfied | Smith acted diligently and Bennett was discovered timely | Due diligence not satisfied under Watts/Hackett reasoning | Properly addressed under Bennett framework; remand warranted. |
| Whether subsequent decisional law can count as a ‘new fact’ under 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Bennett constitutes a new fact triggering 9545(b)(1)(ii) | Watts holds subsequent law is not a new fact | Court adopts Bennett-based approach with subsequent-law caveats as explained. |
| What is the appropriate remedial posture on appeal | Petition should be reviewed on the merits | Untimely petitions foreclose merits review | Remand to PCRA court to address petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382 (2007) (establishes after-discovered fact theory under 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350 (2008) (limits due diligence analysis for new timeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980 (2011) (clarifies that subsequent decisional law is not a new fact under 9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219 (2008) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discusses finality and timing under 9545(b))