Commonwealth v. Smith
194 A.3d 126
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Keith Smith was convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another; sentenced to life. Direct appeal and multiple prior PCRA petitions were unsuccessful.
- At trial two witnesses initially identified Smith to police but later recanted; their prior inconsistent statements were admitted at trial as substantive evidence.
- Smith filed multiple successive PCRA petitions; the instant PCRA petition was filed in October 2014 and amended several times; PCRA court issued a Rule 907 intent-to-dismiss notice and dismissed the petition as untimely on May 8, 2017.
- Smith relied principally on: (1) a 2014 affidavit from David Jefferson stating he was with the victim before the shooting (argued to be Brady/newly discovered evidence), (2) alleged nondisclosure of autopsy materials, (3) a 2014 affidavit from Kelly Smith (alibi/impeachment), and (4) a habeas/void-for-vagueness challenge to the life sentence.
- The PCRA court found Smith failed to satisfy the PCRA timeliness exceptions (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)), principally for lack of due diligence in obtaining the Jefferson and Kelly affidavits and for waiver of the habeas sentencing claim; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness — government interference (Brady) regarding Jefferson statement | Jefferson affidavit (received Aug 14, 2014) shows police withheld exculpatory statement; gov't interference excuses untimeliness under §9545(b)(1)(i) | Even if Brady occurred, Smith knew of Jefferson's detention/statements from earlier discovery reports; he failed to show due diligence in obtaining the affidavit | Court: Exception not met; Smith lacked due diligence, so petition untimely |
| Timeliness — newly discovered facts (Jefferson affidavit) under §9545(b)(1)(ii) | Jefferson affidavit is a new fact that could not have been earlier discovered | Smith was aware of Jefferson in 2000 and Jefferson spoke to Smith’s sister in 2011; delay to 2014 shows lack of due diligence | Court: Exception not met for lack of due diligence |
| Timeliness — Brady claim re: autopsy materials | Commonwealth withheld autopsy photos/reports; this is Brady evidence and excuses untimeliness | Smith could have sought/discovered autopsy materials earlier; failure to act shows no due diligence; claim was waived | Court: Untimely and waived; no exception proven |
| Habeas / void-for-vagueness challenge to life-without-parole sentencing | Statute 18 Pa.C.S. §1102 fails to give notice that "life" means life without parole; habeas corpus available and not bound by PCRA timing | PCRA is the exclusive collateral remedy; sentencing challenge does not allege a sentence greater than lawful maximum and is not among narrow "illegal sentence" categories, so claim is cognizable under PCRA and is waived for not being raised earlier | Court: Claim is a sentencing legal question subject to waiver; habeas relief unavailable because remedies not exhausted — claim waived; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA denials)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Brady may invoke governmental interference exception but petitioner must show due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2015) (due diligence standard for newly-discovered facts)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2012) (no remand required where record plainly shows lack of diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Hacket, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA cognizability of certain constitutional claims)
- Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (three narrow categories of "illegal sentence")
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing statutory/legislative sentencing challenges from illegal-sentence claims)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution's suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (principles defining certain illegal-sentence claims)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (Apprendi progeny relevant to illegal-sentence category)