Commonwealth v. Watts
23 A.3d 980
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Watts convicted of first-degree murder and numerous offenses on Nov. 5, 2001; sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Direct appeal was filed timely but dismissed for failure to file a docketing statement; counsel failed to certify notification of dismissal.
- Watts, illiterate, sought information about his direct appeal status in 2002–2003; in Aug. 2003 Superior Court advised dismissal due to counsel’s docketing failure.
- Watts filed a pro se PCRA petition within 60 days after learning of the dismissal (Aug. 2003); new counsel filed a no-merit letter arguing untimeliness.
- PCRA court dismissed the petition in 2004; Watts appealed; Superior Court affirmed in 2005 citing mandatory, jurisdictional time limits and no use of exceptions.
- Watts filed a second PCRA petition on Dec. 5, 2007, arguing Bennett governs due to new decisional law; PCRA court denied in 2008; Superior Court reversed in part on due diligence grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bennett can be treated as a new fact under 9545(b)(1)(ii). | Watts; Bennett is an unknown fact triggering 9545(b)(1)(ii). | Commonwealth; Bennett is a new legal principle, not an independent fact; cannot circumvent time bar. | No; Bennett does not constitute a new fact under 9545(b)(1)(ii). |
| Whether Watts’s second PCRA petition is timely under 9545(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) in light of Bennett. | Watts acted diligently and Bennett-type reasoning should apply, rendering petition timely. | Watts relied on Bennett improperly; petition premised on direct-appeal dismissal, not Bennett's facts. | Watts's petition remains untimely; Bennett cannot independently salvage the petition. |
| Whether subsequent decisional law (Bennett) can override the pre-Bennett ruling on Watts’s direct-appeal dismissal. | Bennett announced a new applicable rule enabling relief. | Cannot override final pre-Bennett denial; no new facts from Bennett. | No; Bennett does not authorize relief for Watts here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (unknown factual predicate exception to PCRA time-bar; applicable to abandonment of direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978 (Pa. 2008) (Batson-related claim timing; facts ascertainable earlier; cannot use later facts to circumvent time bar)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d 1157 (Pa. 2003) (PCRA time-bar jurisdictional; no ad hoc equitable exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 943 A.2d 264 (Pa. 2008) (time-bar constraints; no broad equitable relief)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998) (time limitations reasonable; finality in collateral review)