Commonwealth v. Ward-Green
141 A.3d 527
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Sept. 3, 2010: Ward‑Green’s Chevrolet Cobalt struck a utility pole and a school bus; passenger Robert Chambers died. Bosch crash-data report recorded loss of power, ignition switch movement to accessory two seconds before impact, and non‑deployment of airbags.
- Jan. 10, 2013: Ward‑Green pled guilty (negotiated) to involuntary manslaughter and reckless driving and was sentenced (4–8 months; credited and immediately paroled) with three years’ probation.
- April–Oct. 2014: GM issued recall and Ward‑Green received notice; she consulted counsel and filed a claim with GM’s settlement fund (claim later deemed valid).
- Jan. 23, 2015: Ward‑Green received an expert report (Dr. Baxley) opining the crash resulted from a defective GM ignition switch; PCRA petition filed March 24, 2015 claiming after‑discovered evidence.
- PCRA court granted relief, vacated the guilty plea on Aug. 26, 2015. Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ward‑Green) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the PCRA petition timely / did the court have jurisdiction? | Ward‑Green’s claim is untimely; the judgment became final Feb. 2013 and the PCRA filed Mar. 2015. | The new‑facts exception (§9545(b)(1)(ii)) applies because the ignition defect became knowable only after 2014 congressional hearings and GM’s disclosures; Dr. Baxley’s report was received Jan. 23, 2015 and PCRA filed within 60 days. | Superior Court: Petition was untimely and Ward‑Green failed to prove the new‑facts exception because the Bosch data and recall/settlement notice were available by Oct. 2014; she did not exercise due diligence to file within 60 days. PCRA court lacked jurisdiction; order reversed. |
| 2) If jurisdiction existed, did after‑discovered evidence require vacatur of plea? | On the merits, expert analysis doesn’t create a new fact; evidence was available earlier so relief inappropriate. | Dr. Baxley’s causation opinion linked the ignition defect to non‑deployment and was newly ascertainable only after GM’s 2014 disclosures, supporting withdrawal of plea. | Superior Court: Declined to reach merits after holding PCRA court lacked jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gamboa‑Taylor, 753 A.2d 780 (Pa. 2000) (expert change of opinion based on previously ascertainable facts does not satisfy PCRA new‑facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishes new‑facts jurisdictional exception from substantive after‑discovered evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 2000) (expert analysis of facts available at trial is not a new fact for §9545(b)(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (petitioner must show facts were unknown and could not have been ascertained with due diligence to satisfy new‑facts exception)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 201 (Pa. 2000) (PCRA timeliness is jurisdictional and strictly enforced)