Commonwealth v. Taylor, 620 Pa. 429

Appellant Paul Gamboa Taylor was sentenced to death in 1992 after pleading guilty to multiple murders and receiving a death sentence on four counts and a life sentence on one count.
Taylor filed multiple PCRA petitions; the third PCRA petition, filed January 28, 2008, alleged trial counsel had an undisclosed conflict of interest related to Barshinger, a related party, during 1981–1988.
The PCRA court initially treated the third petition as timely, held evidentiary hearings, and then ruled no actual conflict existed and that there were no newly-discovered facts to excuse untimeliness.
The court ultimately dismissed the third PCRA petition as untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) because the newly-discovered-evidence exception did not apply.
This Court reviews the timeliness de novo and impermissibly tolls merits if the petition is untimely; the Court affirmed, holding the third petition untimely and declined to reach the merits.
Trial counsel, now deceased, previously represented Barshinger, the victims’ relative, but the PCRA court found no evidence that this created an actionable conflict of interest that impacted Taylor’s representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the third PCRA petition	Taylor contends the untimeliness should be excused by the newly discovered evidence exception.	Commonwealth argues no timely exception applies; the facts were public and discoverable.	Untimely; the newly discovered evidence exception not satisfied.
Existence of an actual conflict of interest	Taylor asserts trial counsel had an undisclosed conflict due to Barshinger and related factors.	Commonwealth argues no actual conflict existed.	No actual conflict found.
Adverse impact of any conflict on representation	If a conflict existed, it affected trial and appellate performance.	No adverse impact shown; counsel followed client’s directions.	No adverse impact proven.
Effect of undisclosed conflict on waivers and mitigation	Conflict would have enabled mitigation and defense presentation.	No evidence that waivers or mitigation were improperly affected.	Merits not reached due to untimeliness.
Remand for additional evidence or analysis	Court should consider more evidence or thorough analysis.	Not warranted given untimeliness.	Remand not required; merits not reached.

Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA timeliness standard; review of timeliness with deference to mandatory rule)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (PCRA timeliness and merits distinction; statutory timeliness mandatory)
Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness requirements are jurisdictional)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520 (Pa. 2006) (matters of public record not unknown for timeliness)
Commonwealth v. Whitney, 817 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2003) (public facts not newly discovered for timeliness)
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (timeliness principles in PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 51 A.3d 195 (Pa. 2012) (per curiam; non-discovery of public information cannot trigger timeliness)
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 634 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1993) (background facts in prior direct appeal; related progeny)