Com. v. Delarosa, R.

Opinion

J-S15003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

v. :

: :

RAUL DELAROSA :

:

Appellant : No. 2188 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2024

Appellant, Raul DeLarosa, appeals from the order entered on August 3,

2023, which denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

On January 22, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to

third-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation.1 During

the plea colloquy, Appellant admitted to the following:

[In] June [] 2010, [Appellant] requested the assistance of [co-defendant Hector Rivera] . . . to assist him in the killing of the victim in this case, Candido Hidalgo [(“the Victim”)].

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, and 902(a), respectively.

J-S15003-24

Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another [co-defendant] in this case by the name of Jose Padilla . . . to also assist in the killing of [the Victim].

On . . . [June 13, 2010], with the assistance of [Appellant], Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives[,] waited in the back of [the Victim’s Philadelphia] property. . . . Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla waited . . . between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on that date . . . [and] when the [Victim] . . . arrived home, they attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly with knives. And they stabbed him in the area of the face, the neck, the hands, and the chest.

Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location. Police and medics were called by [the Victim’s] wife and daughter who were home at the time. Medics arrived and pronounced [the Victim] dead at 4:07 a.m.

[The Victim’s] body was transported to the Medical Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that the cause of [the Victim’s] death was multiple stab and incise wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.

Subsequent to the killing of [the Victim, Appellant] did make arrangements to pay Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of dollars for their assistance in the killing of [the Victim. Appellant] fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the murder and had to be extradited back here to be here for this trial.

...

[The] evidence would show that [Appellant and the Victim] were involved in a drug dealing business together. They were transporting large quantities of drugs from Mexico throughout the East Coast.

N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/22/18, at 20-22.

On February 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the

negotiated, aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison for his convictions.

3

J-S15003-24

N.T. Sentencing, 2/20/18, at 19. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of

sentence on January 31, 2019. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 209 A.3d 543

(Pa. Super. 2019) (non-precedential decision).

On March 26, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and

the PCRA court later appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the

proceedings. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s first PCRA petition on

August 12, 2019 and we affirmed the PCRA court’s order on December 14,

2020. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 245 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(non-precedential decision).

On May 1, 2023, Appellant filed the current PCRA petition, which

constitutes Appellant’s second petition for post-conviction collateral relief

under the PCRA. Within the petition, Appellant claimed:

On November 20, 2022, while at the prison library, the law clerk provided [Appellant] with a copy of a publication titled Right To Be Free, which documented an extensive list of Philadelphia Police Officers who had been “accused, charged, convicted, and/or disciplined for alleged actions of misconduct.”

With the assistance of the law clerk, the names of these police officers were compared to the few pages of the discovery file [Appellant] has in his possession. This search revealed the following officers accused or convicted of misconduct were also involved in the investigation of [Appellant’s] case: “John Verrecchio, Ohmarr Jenkins, Thomas Gaul, Angela Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Philip Nordo, Carl Watkins,” and “Holmes.”

On February 12, 2023, [Appellant] received (from the prison’s law clerk) what he believes to be portions of Officer Nordo’s disciplinary file that the law clerk obtained from another prisoner. This information, which was never disclosed to defense counsel, reveals that Officer Nordo had

4

J-S15003-24

committed instances of police misconduct before [Appellant’s] arrest, and was suspended or under investigation at the time of [Appellant’s] guilty plea.

[Appellant] submits that[] Hector Rivera, the only witness linking him to this crime[,] was interviewed by [officers] Nordo, Verrecchio, and Gaul. At this interview, Rivera allegedly confessed to committing the murder ordered by [Appellant], and set in motion via a phone call.

In an August 5, 2014 sworn affidavit, based on this interview, Officer Verrecchio claimed to be in possession of phone records linking a call from [Appellant] to Rivera at the time of the murder. These phone records, however, cannot be located. While [Appellant] knew he did not call Rivera when he pled guilty, his attorney told him the police had records that demonstrate a call was made. Had [Appellant] known at the time of his guilty plea that Officer Verrecchio was dishonest, he would not have accepted his attorney’s word that such phone records existed, and further, rejected the Commonwealth’s offer to plead guilty.

Appellant’s Second PCRA Petition, 5/1/23, at 1-3 (citations and numbering

omitted).

According to Appellant, even though his PCRA petition was facially

untimely, his claims fell within the newly-discovered fact and governmental

interference exceptions to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar. Appellant requested

that the PCRA court “vacate his conviction, allow him to withdraw his guilty

plea, and invoke his right to a jury trial.” Id. at 3.

On May 17, 2023, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice that it

intended to dismiss his petition in 20 days, without holding a hearing, as the

petition was untimely. PCRA Court Notice, 5/17/23, at 1; see also

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant responded to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice

with an amended petition that expounded upon his original claims. See

5

J-S15003-24

Appellant’s Rule 907 Response, 7/10/23, at 1-29. The PCRA court finally

dismissed Appellant’s second PCRA petition on August 3, 2023 and Appellant

filed a timely notice of appeal. See PCRA Court Order, 8/3/23, at 1. Appellant

raises the following claims on appeal:

1. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his claim that his PCRA filings below, within [one] year of his discovery of evidence revealing the homicide detectives in his case engaged in serious misconduct, satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and (ii)?

2. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his Brady[2] claim where, after pleading guilty and petitioning to withdraw [his] plea, Appellant presented evidence suppressed by the Commonwealth, revealing that both the Commonwealth and trial court knew that the homicide detectives in his case were engaging in serious misconduct which if disclosed, would have resulted in Appellant’s rejection of the Commonwealth’s plea offer?

3. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his after-discovered evidence claim where, after pleading guilty, Appellant presented evidence – suppressed by the Commonwealth – after being alerted to and diligently searching for such evidence, revealing that all homicide detectives in his case, including the affiant himself, engaged in misconduct that included falsifying witness statements to support affidavits of probable cause?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Barbara

A. McDermott. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case,

____________________________________________

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

6

J-S15003-24

for the reasons expressed in Judge McDermott’s August 3, 2023 opinion.

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge McDermott’s opinion and adopt it

as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this

ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge McDermott’s August 3,

2023 opinion.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 6/28/2024

Circulated 05/17/2024 03:36 PM

IN THE IN THE COURT

COURT OF

OF COMMON

COMMON PLEAS

PLEAS

FIRST JUDICIAL FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DISTRICT OF

OF PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL TRIAL CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

DIVISION

COMMONWEAL TH OF COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

v. v. FILED ..,,

ALIE 00 33 2023

RAUL RAUL DELAROSA DELAROSA PCRA Unit

CP Criminal Listings

ORDER AND ORDER AND OPINION

OPINION

McDermott, J. McDermott, J. August 3, 2023 August 3, 2023

Procedural Procedural History History

On On March 10, 2017, March 10, the Petitioner, 2017, the Petitioner, Raul Raul Delarosa,

Delarosa, was

was arrested

arrested and

and charged

charged with

with Murder

Murder

and and related related offenses. On January offenses. On 22, 2018, January 22, the Petitioner 2018, the Petitioner appeared appeared before

before this

this Court

Court and

and entered

entered

into into aa negotiated to Third-Degree plea to

guilty plea

negotiated guilty Third-Degree Murder, Murder, Conspiracy

Conspiracy to

to Commit

Commit Murder,

Murder, and

and

Criminal Criminal Solicitation of Murder, Solicitation of Murder, At At the

the Defendant's

Defendant's request,

request, sentencing

sentencing was

was deferred.

deferred. On

On

February 13, February 13, 2018, the Petitioner 2018, the Petitioner filed filed aa Motion

Motion to

to Withdraw

Withdraw his

his Guilty

Guilty Plea.

Plea. Following

Following aa

hearing on hearing on February 20, 2018, February 20, 2018, this

this Court

Court denied

denied his

his Motion. That same

Motion. That same day,

day, this

this Court

Court imposed

imposed

the the negotiated negotiated penalties of fifteen penalties of fifteen to

to thirty

thirty years

years of

of imprisonment for Third-Degree imprisonment for Third-Degree Murder, Murder, and

and

concurrent concurrent sentences of fifteen sentences of fifteen to

to thirty

thirty years of imprisonment years of for Conspiracy imprisonment for Conspiracy to to Commit

Commit

Murder Murder and and Criminal Solicitation of Criminal Solicitation of Murder, Murder, for

for aa total

total sentence

sentence of

of fifteen

fifteen to

to thirty years of

thirty years of

imprisonment.' imprisonment.'

The The remaining remaining charges were nolle charges were nolle prossed prossed

II

The Petitioner The Petitioner appealed, and on appealed, and on January 31, 2019, January 31, 2019, the

the Superior

Superior Court

Court of

of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

affirmed his affirmed his judgment of sentence, judgment of sentence, The The Petitioner

Petitioner did

did not

not file

file aa Petition

Petition for

for Allowance

Allowance of

of Appeal

Appeal

with the with the Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania.

On March On March 26, 26, 2019,

2019, the

the Petitioner

Petitioner filed

filed aa timely prose Post-Conviction timely prose Post-Conviction Relief Relief Act

Act

his first.

petition, his ("PCRA") petition, ("PCRA") On May first. On 20, 2019,

May 20, 2019, court-appointed counsel filed PCRA counsel

court-appointed PCRA no-merit filed aa no-merit

letter pursuant letter pursuant to Commonwealth ». Finley, to Commonwealth Finley, 550 550 A.2d

A.2d 213

213 (Pa. Super. 1988)

(Pa. Super. (en bane).

1988) (en bane). On

On May

May

30, 2019, 30, 2019, after Grazier hearing, after aa Grazier hearing, this Court permitted this Court counsel to permitted counsel to withdraw, withdraw, allowed

allowed the

the

Petitioner to Petitioner to proceed se, and pro se,

proceed pro and determined determined that

that an

an evidentiary hearing was evidentiary hearing was necessary.'

necessary.' After

After an

an

on August

hearing on

evidentiary hearing evidentiary August 12, 2019, this 12, 2019, this Court

Court dismissed

dismissed the

the petition.

petition. After

After appellate

appellate

counsel was counsel was appointed", the Petitioner appointed", the Petitioner appealed, and the appealed, and the Superior Superior Court

Court of

of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

affirmed this affirmed this Courts Courts dismissal

dismissal on

on December

December 14,

14, 2020.

2020. The Petitioner

Petitioner did

did not

not file

file aa Petition

Petition for

for

Allowance of Allowance of Appeal.

Appeal.

On May On 1, 2023, May 1, 2023, the Petitioner Petitioner filed

filed the

the instant

instant pro se PCRA

pro se petition, his PCRA petition, his second, second, On

On

17, 2023, May 17, May 2023, this this Court

Court issued

issued aa Notice

Notice of

of Intent

Intent to

to Dismiss

Dismiss pursuant

pursuant to

to Pa.R.Crim,P.

Pa.R.Crim,P. 907.

907. On

On

June 5, June 2023, this 5, 2023, this Court Court granted the Petitioner's granted the Petitioner's Motion Motion for

for Extension

Extension of

of Time

Time to

to File

File aa 907

907

and directed Response and Response directed him him to file aa Response

to file no later Response no later than

than July

July 6,

6, 2023.

2023. On

On July

July 10,

10, 2023,

2023, the

the

Petitioner filed Petitioner filed an an untimely

untimely 907 Response

907 Response

On January On 22, 2018, January 22, 2018, the

the Petitioner

Petitioner admitted

admitted his

his guilt to the

guilt to the following

following facts:

facts:

[I]n June [I]n June of2010,

of2010, [the

[the Petitioner],

Petitioner], Raul

Raul Delarosa,

Delarosa, also

also known

known

as Javier as Javier Cepeda, also known Cepeda, also known as as Edwin Edwin Pichardo,

Pichardo, requested the

requested the

assistance of assistance of aa codefendant codefendant inin this

this case,

case, Hector

Hector Rivera,

Rivera, PID

PID No.

No.

Comuomwealth • Comuomwealth • Grazier, Grazier, 713

713 A.2d

A.2d 81

81 (Pa.

(Pa. 1998).

1998).

'' At At the Grazier hearing, the Grazier this Court hearing, this Court noted noted that it had

that it had not

not yet received the

yet received the Finley

Finley letter, but found letter, but found that an an evidentiary

evidentiary

hearing was hearing was necessary to address necessary to address Petitioner's Petitioner's allegations

allegations of

of plea counsel's ineffectiveness plea counsel's ineffectiveness inin connection connection with

with the

the

of his entry of entry his guilty plea.

guilty plea.

'At the 'At the conclusion conclusion of of the

the evidentiary hearing, the evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner Petitioner requested that counsel requested that counsel be be appointed

appointed for

for his

his appeal.

appeal.

974687. He 974687. He asked

asked Mr.

Mr. Rivera

Rivera to

to assist

assist him

him in

in the

the killing

killing of

of the

the

in this

[decedent] in [decedent] this case,

case, Candido

Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo.

Hector Rivera, Hector Rivera, in

in turn, asked another

turn, asked another codefendant codefendant in

in this

this case

case

the name by the by name of

of Jose

Jose Padilla,

Padilla, PID

PID No.

No. 946658,

946658, to

to also

also assist

assist in

in the

the

killing of killing of Mr. Candido

Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo.

On the On the date

date of...

of... June

June 13th

13th of

of 2010,

2010, with

with the

the assistance

assistance of[the

of[the

Hector Rivera

Petitioner], Hector Petitioner], Rivera and and Jose

Jose Padilla,

Padilla, armed

armed with knives

with knives

waited in waited in the

the back

back of

of [the

[the decedent]'s

decedent]'s property, which is property, which is located located at

at

6120 Cottage 6120 Cottage Street in Philadelphia.

Street in Rivera and Mr. Rivera

Philadelphia. Mr. and Mr.

Mr. Padilla

Padilla

waited at waited at approximately between 3:00 approximately between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.

a.m. onon that

that

date, June date, June 13,

13, 2010.

2010. And

And when

when the

the [decedent] arrived home, [decedent] arrived home, they they

attacked him attacked him and

and stabbed

stabbed him

him repeatedly with knives.

repeatedly with knives. And And they

they

stabbed him stabbed him in

in the

the area

area of

of the

the face,

face, the

the neck,

neck, the

the hands,

hands, and

and the

the

chest. chest.

Mr. Rivera Mr. Rivera and

and Mr.

Mr. Padilla

Padilla fled

fled the

the location,

location, Police

Police and

and medics

medics

were called were called by

by [the

[the decedent]'s wife and decedent]'s wife and daughter daughter who

who were

were home

home

at the at the time,

time, Medics

Medics arrived

arrived and

and pronounced [the decedent]

pronounced [the decedent] dead dead at

at

4:07 a.m. 4:07 a.m.

decedent]'s body

[The decedent]'s was transported body was to the transported to the Medical Medical

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic forensic

Dr. Aaron

pathologist Dr. pathologist Aaron Rosen, Rosen, who

who determined

determined that

that the

the cause

cause of

of

[the decedent]'s [the decedent]'s death was multiple death was multiple stab

stab and

and incise

incise wounds,

wounds, and

and

that the manner that the manner of

of death was homicide.

death was homicide.

to the

Subsequent to Subsequent the killing of [the decedent], killing of decedent], [the [the Petitioner]

Petitioner] did

did

make arrangements make arrangements to to pay Rivera and pay Mr, Rivera and Mr. Padilla Padilla thousands

thousands of

of

dollars for dollars for their

their assistance

assistance in

in the

the killing

killing of

of Candido

Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo. [The

[The

Petitioner} fled Petitioner} fled to

to the

the Dominican Republic shortly Dominican Republic after the shortly after the murder murder

and had and had to

to be

be extradited

extradited back

back here

here to

to be

be here

here for

for this

this trial.

trial.

[The Petitioner] [The and [the Petitioner] and [the decedent] were involved decedent] were involved in in aa drug

drug

business together...

dealing business dealing together... transporting transporting large

large quantities

quantities of drugs

of drugs

from Mexico from Mexico throughout

throughout the

the East

East Coast.

Coast.

N.T. 1/22/2018 N.T. at 20-21.

1/22/2018 at 20-21.

Discussion Discussion In his In his second second PCRA

PCRA petition, the Petitioner petition, the Petitioner raises raises one

one claim

claim for

for review,

review, alleging

alleging that

that the

the

Commonwealth committed Commonwealth Brady? violation committed aa Brady? violation by failing to disclose failing to disclose allegations allegations of

of misconduct

misconduct

•• Brady Brady ». Maryland, Maryland, 373 U.$. 83

373 U.$. 83 (1963)

(1963)

33

-----

-

Detectives John against Detectives against Verrecchio, Phillip John Verrecchio, Phillip Nordo, Nordo, Thomas

Thomas Gaul,

Gaul, Ohmarr

Ohmarr Jenkins,

Jenkins, Angela

Angela

Gaines, Ronald Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Jenkins, Carl

Carl Watkins,

Watkins, and

and Holmes°

Holmes° in

in other

other cases.

cases.

A PCRA A PCRA petition, including aa second petition, including second or or subsequent petition, must subsequent petition, must be be filed

filed within

within one

one

year of year of the the date date that

that the

the judgment

judgment of

of sentence

sentence becomes

becomes final.

final. 42 Pa.C,S. 88 9545(b)(1).

42 Pa.C,S. 9545(b)(1). "[A]

"[A]

becomes final judgment becomes judgment final at at the

the conclusion

conclusion of

of direct

direct review,

review, including

including discretionary

discretionary review

review in

in the

the

Court of Supreme Court Supreme of the the United

United States

States and

and the

the Supreme Court of

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at Pennsylvania, or at the

the expiration

expiration

of time of time for for seeking the review.

seeking the review. Commomwealth Commomwealth ». Nedab, 195 ». Nedab, 195 A.3d

A.3d 957,

957, 960

960 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2018);

2018);

42 Pa.CS. $$ 9545(b)(3). 42 Pa.CS. A final 9545(b)(3). A final order order of

of the

the Superior Court is

Superior Court is any

any order

order that

that concludes

concludes an

an

and aa Petition appeal, and appeal, Petition for for Allowance

Allowance of

of Appeal with the

Appeal with the Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania must

must be

be

filed within filed within thirty thirty days

days after

after the

the entry

entry of

of the

the Superior

Superior Court

Court Order.

Order. Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P. 1112;

1112; Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P.

1113. 1113.

The time The time requirement requirement is

is mandatory

mandatory and

and jurisdictional

jurisdictional in

in nature,

nature, and

and aa trial

trial court

court cannot

cannot

ignore it in ignore it in order order to

to reach

reach aa petition's Commonwealth v.

merits. Commonwealth

petition's merits. v. Cox, Cox, 146

146 A.3d

A.3d 221,

221, 227

227 (Pa.

(Pa.

2016) citing Commonwealth 2016) ((citing Commonwealth v, v, .Jones,

.Jones, 54

54 A.3d

A.3d 14,

14, 16

16 (Pa.

(Pa. 2012)). An untimely

2012)). An untimely petition renders petition renders

the court the court without without jurisdiction

jurisdiction to

to afford

afford relief. Commonwealth • relief. Commonwealth • Spotz, 171 A.3d Spotz, 171 A.3d 675,

675, 678

678 (Pa.

(Pa.

2017), 2017),

The instant The instant petition petition is

is facially

facially untimely.

untimely. The

The Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Superior Court affirmed this this

Court's Judgment Court's Judgment of of Sentence

Sentence on

on January

January 31,

31, 2019.

2019. Therefore,

Therefore, the

the instant

instant conviction

conviction became

became

final on final on March March 3, 3, 2019,

2019, when

when the

the thirty-day

thirty-day period seek aa Petition to seek

period to for Allowance Petition for Allowance of of Appeal

Appeal

with the with the Supreme Supreme Court Court of

of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania expired.

expired. Petitioner

Petitioner had

had until

until March

March 3, 2020 to

3, 2020 to file

file aa

timely petition. timely petition. The The instant

instant petition

petition was

was filed

filed on

on May

May 1,

1, 2023,

2023, three

three years, one month,

years, one and

month, and

twenty-eight days twenty-eight days after after the

the period

period to

to seek

seek review

review expired

expired

·The Petitioner ·The Petitioner did did not

not provide

provide aa first

first name

name for

for Detective

Detective Holmes.

Holmes.

A PCRA A PCRA court court has

has jurisdiction to review jurisdiction to review collateral collateral claims

claims filed

filed beyond

beyond the

the one-year limit

one-year limit

if aa petitioner if and proves alleges and

petitioner alleges proves any of the any of the three

three limited

limited exceptions

exceptions under

under 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §

9545(b)(16-(): 9545(b)(16-():

the failure () the () to raise

failure to raise the

the claim

claim previously

previously was the result was the result of

of

interference by interference by government officials with government officials with the the presentation

presentation of the

of the

claim in claim in violation

violation of

of the

the Constitution

Constitution oror laws

laws of

of this

this

Commonwealth or Commonwealth or the Constitution Constitution oror laws

laws of

of the

the United

United States;

States;

the facts

(ii) the (ii) facts upon which the upon which the claim

claim is

is predicated

predicated were

were

unknown to unknown to the

the petitioner and could

petitioner and could not not have

have been

been ascertained

ascertained by

by

the exercise the exercise of

of due

due diligence; or

diligence; or

the right

(iii) the (iii) asserted is right asserted is aa constitutional constitutional right

right that

that was

was

recognized by recognized the Supreme by the Court of Supreme Court of the the United

United States

States or

or the

the

Court of

Supreme Court Supreme of Pennsylvania after the Pennsylvania after the time time period provided in

period provided in

this section this section and

and has

has been

been held

held by that court

by that court to

to apply

apply retroactively.

retroactively.

42. Pa.C.S. $$ 9545(b)(1). 42. Pa.C.S. A petition 9545(b)(1). A petition invoking one of invoking one of the

the exceptions

exceptions must

must be

be filed

filed within

within

one year one of the year of the date date the

the claim

claim could

could have

have first

first been

been presented,

presented, and

and aa petitioner

petitioner must

must plead

plead and

and

that he prove that prove he has has met

met this

this requirement.

requirement. Commonwealth v. Peterson, Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 192 A.3d

A.3d 1123,

1123, 1125

1125 (Pa.

(Pa.

2018); 42 2018); Pa.C.S. $$ 9545()02).

42 Pa.C.S. 9545()02).

The Petitioner The Petitioner alleges that the alleges that the instant

instant claim

claim falls

falls under

under the

the newly-discovered fact and newly-discovered fact and

government interference government interference exceptions exceptions to

to the

the PCRA

PCRA timeliness

timeliness requirement.

requirement. To

To qualify

qualify for

for the

the

newly-discovered fact newly-discovered fact exception, exception, aa petitioner needs to petitioner needs to establish establish that

that the

the facts

facts forming

forming the

the basis

basis of

of

the claim the claim were were unknown

unknown to

to him

him and

and could

could not

not have

have been

been obtained

obtained by

by the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due

diligence, Commonwealth v. diligence, Commonwealth v. Burton, Burton, 158

158 A.3d

A.3d 618,

618, 629

629 (Pa.

(Pa. 2017), Due diligence 2017), Due diligence requires that aa requires that

petitioner take petitioner take reasonable reasonable steps

steps to

to protect

protect his

his own

own interests. See Commonwealth interests. See Commonwealth v». Sanchez, Sanchez, 204

204

A.3d 524, A.3d 524, 526 526 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2019)

2019) (petitioner failed to (petitioner failed to explain how the explain how the fact

fact that

that aa detective

detective was

was

found liable found liable of of malicious

malicious prosecution

prosecution in

in aa civil

civil case

case could

could not

not have

have been

been ascertained

ascertained sooner

sooner by

by

66

the exercise the exercise of of due

due diligence). A petitioner diligence). A must explain petitioner must explain why he could why he could not

not have

have obtained

obtained the

the new

new

fact earlier fact earlier with with the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due diligence to satisfy

diligence to satisfy the

the newly-discovered

newly-discovered fact

fact exception. Id

exception. Id

the instant In the In instant petition, Petitioner claims petition, Petitioner claims that, that, on November 20,

on November 20, 2022,

2022, aa law

law clerk

clerk in

in the

the

law library prison law prison library provided him with provided him with aa copy of aa list copy of list of

of Philadelphia

Philadelphia Police

Police Officers

Officers accused

accused of

of

misconduct entitled misconduct entitled "Right To Be "Right To Be Free."

Free." Upon reviewing this Upon reviewing this list, list, he

he noticed

noticed that

that it

it included

included the

the

above-named Detectives, above-named Detectives, whom whom he

he alleges

alleges were

were involved

involved in

in his

his case.

case. On

On February

February 12,

12, 2023,

2023,

Petitioner allegedly Petitioner received portions allegedly received of Detective portions of Detective Nordo's Nordo's disciplinary

disciplinary file

file from

from the

the law

law clerk,

clerk,

who had who had obtained obtained the the documents

documents from

from another

another inmate,

inmate, In his 907

In his 907 Response, Petitioner states Response, Petitioner states that that

he received he received more more information from the information from the prison law clerk prison law clerk on

on June

June 10th

10th and

and 20th,

20th, 2023

2023 regarding

regarding

additional allegations additional of misconduct allegations of misconduct by Detectives Nardo, by Detectives Gaul, Jenkins, Nardo, Gaul, Jenkins, and and Verrecchia

Verrecchia which

which

predate his predate his guilty guilty plea.'

plea.'

The Petitioner The Petitioner claims claims that

that the

the allegations of misconduct allegations of misconduct against against the

the Detectives

Detectives in

in other,

other,

unrelated cases unrelated cases constitute constitute newly-discovered facts as newly-discovered facts as they were never they were never disclosed disclosed to

to him

him by

by the

the

Commonwealth and Commonwealth and they were unknown they were unknown to

to him

him until

until they were provided

they were him by the to him

provided to the prison prison

law clerk. law In his clerk. In his 907 Response, Petitioner 907 Response, Petitioner alleges that he alleges that he acted

acted diligently

diligently once

once he

he received

received

information from information from the the prison law clerk

prison law clerk regarding regarding these

these allegations.

allegations. In

In support, he attached

support, he attached aa letter letter

he sent he sent to to the the Philadelphia District Attorney's Philadelphia District Office on Attorney's Office on January 12, 2023 January 12, 2023 requesting information requesting information

related to related to misconduct misconduct or

or criminal

criminal acts

acts committed

committed by

by the

the Detectives. See Pet's Detectives. See Pet's Exhibit Exhibit 5.

5.

Petitioner also Petitioner also attached attached excerpts

excerpts from

from an article entitled

an article entitled "The

"The Homicide

Homicide Files"

Files" that

that was

was

originally published originally published by by the

the Philadelphia

Philadelphia Inquirer on May Inquirer on 7, 2021.

May 7, See Pet.'s

2021. See Pet.'s Ex.

Ex. 2.

2. Newspaper

Newspaper

articles about articles about police police misconduct in unrelated misconduct in unrelated cases cases are

are insufficient

insufficient to

to establish

establish the

the newlynewly

-

discovered fact discovered fact exception. See Commonwealth exception. See Commonwealth • • Reeves,

Reeves, 2545

2545 EDA

EDA 2022

2022 (Pa.

(Pa. Super. June 9,

Super. June 9,

Petitioner did 7 Petitioner did not not include

include any

any additional

additional information

information regarding

regarding allegations of misconduct allegations of misconduct against Detectives against Detectives

Gaines, Ronald Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Jenkins, Watkins,

Watkins, or

or Holmes.

Holmes.

Commonwealth ». Castro,

(citing Commonwealth 2023) (citing 2023) Castro, 93 93 A.3d

A.3d 818

818 (Pa.

(Pa. 2014)).

2014)). A

A newspaper

newspaper article

article may

may

contain allegations contain that suggest allegations that evidence may suggest evidence exist, "but may exist, "but allegations allegations in

in the

the media,

media, whether

whether true

true

or false, or are no false, are no more more evidence

evidence than

than allegations in any

allegations in other out-of-court any other out-of-court situation,"

situation," Id,

Id, Therefore,

Therefore,

articles referencing

newspaper articles newspaper misconduct by the referencing misconduct the Detectives Detectives in

in unrelated

unrelated cases

cases do

do not

not constitute

constitute

facts, and

newly-discovered facts, newly-discovered and only only contain

contain information

information which

which could

could lead

lead aa petitioner

petitioner to

to discover

discover

facts. facts.

Petitioner's claims Petitioner's claims fail

fail to

to satisfy the newly-discovered satisfy the fact exception newly-discovered fact as he exception as he has

has not

not

established that established that he he exercised

exercised due

due diligence in discovering diligence in these allegations.

discovering these allegations. Petitioner Petitioner could

could have

have

discovered the allegations discovered allegations against against the Detectives earlier the Detectives earlier by making aa reasonable by making effort to reasonable effort to

discover them. With discover them. With regard to the regard to the alleged misconduct of alleged misconduct of Detective Detective Nordo,

Nordo, Petitioner

Petitioner could

could have

have

been obtained been obtained this this information

information as

as early as August

early as 2017, when August 2017, when there

there were

were multiple

multiple new

new reports

reports of

of

his misconduct his misconduct and and suspension. There were suspension. There were also also articles

articles published by the published by the Philadelphia Philadelphia Inquirer

Inquirer

between 2019 between 2019 and and 2021

2021 for each

each of

of the

the cases

cases where

where aa conviction

conviction was

was vacated

vacated based

based on

on the

the

misconduct of misconduct Detective Nordo.8 of Detective Nordo.8

In his In his 907

907 Response, Petitioner acknowledges Response, Petitioner that the acknowledges that the allegations of misconduct allegations of misconduct in in each

each

of the of the cases cases he he cited

cited were

were made

made prior his guilty

to his

prior to guilty plea on January plea on January 22, 2018. 9 Petitioner 22, 2018. has not.

Petitioner has not.

offered any reasonable offered any reasonable explanation as to explanation as to why he could why he could not

not have

have learned

learned about

about these

these allegations

allegations

earlier with earlier with the the exercise

exercise of

of due

due diligence. See Commonwealth diligence. See Commonwealth • • Talbert,

Talbert, 281

281 A.3d

A.3d 1091

1091 (Pa.

(Pa.

2022) (non-precedential Super, 2022) Super, decision) (appellant's (non-precedential decision) (appellant's Brady claim regarding Brady claim regarding allegations allegations of

of

The Philadelphia The Philadelphia Inquirer Inquirer published articles regarding published articles Jamaal Simmons'

regarding Jamaal Simmons' case case on on January

January 21,

21, 2019,

2019, Sherman

Sherman

McCoy's case McCoy's case on on February 22, 2019,

February 22, 2019, Gerald Gerald Camp's

Camp's case

case on

on February

February 28, 28, 2019,

2019, James

James Frazier's

Frazier's case

case on

on April

April I9,

I9,

2019, and 2019, and Akel Akel Gracia's

Gracia's case

case on

on June

June 4,

4, 2021,

2021, The

The Philadelphia

Philadelphia Inquirer

Inquirer also

also published

published articles

articles regarding

regarding Reafeal

Reafeal

Fields' case Fields' case onon December December 19,19, 2022

2022 even though bis

even though bis conviction conviction has

has not

not been

been vacated,

vacated, and

and regarding Rafi Dixon's regarding Rafi Dixon's case on case on April 21, 2022 April 21, 2022 although

although his

his conviction

conviction was

was not

not vacated

vacated as as aa result

result of

of Detective

Detective Nordo's

Nordo's conduct,

conduct, but

but only

only on

on

the basis the basis ofof ineffective ineffective assistance

assistance of

of counsel

counsel for

for failure

failure to

to call

call an

an alibi

alibi witness.

witness.

the allegations AI! the of misconduct allegations of misconduct against the Detectives against the Detectives referenced referenced by the Petitioner by the Petitioner in

in his

his 907

907 Response were first Response were first

raised between raised between 2006 2006 and

and 2017.

2017.

misconduct by misconduct Detectives Nordo, by Detectives Nordo, Gaul, Gaul, and

and Verrecchio

Verrecchio in

in unrelated

unrelated cases

cases untimely

untimely where

where

did not

appellant did appellant not explain he could why he

explain why could not

not have

have teamed

teamed those

those facts

facts earlier by the

earlier by the exercise

exercise of

of due

due

when the

diligence when diligence the unrelated unrelated cases

cases preceded his petition preceded his by several petition by several years).

years).

Petitioner failed Petitioner failed to to detail

detail any efforts he

any efforts he made

made to

to discover

discover these

these allegations

allegations prior

prior to

to

November 2022, November 2022, which which was

was over

over four

four years and nine

years and nine months

months after

after he

he pled

pled guilty.

guilty. Instead

Instead of

of

details about

providing details providing about his his efforts,

efforts, Petitioner

Petitioner argues

argues that

that he

he was

was unable

unable to

to discover

discover these

these

allegations prior allegations to November prior to November 2022

2022 because

because he

he was

was limited

limited by

by his

his incarceration

incarceration and

and the

the fact

fact that

that

he primarily he primarily speaks speaks Spanish.

Spanish.

to the

Contrary to Contrary the Petitioner's Petitioner's assertion,

assertion, Petitioner

Petitioner must

must still

still plead

plead and

and prove

prove that

that the

the facts

facts

could not could not have have been

been obtained

obtained by the exercise

by the exercise of

of due

due diligence

diligence even

even though

though he

he is

is incarcerated

incarcerated and

and

the public the record presumption public record has been presumption has been eliminated.

eliminated. Petitioner

Petitioner cannot

cannot merely

merely claim

claim that

that he

he was

was

unable to unable to take take any action to

any action to discover

discover these

these facts

facts as

as aa result

result of

of his

his incarceration.

incarceration. Petitioner Petitioner was

was

represented by represented counsel for by counsel for much

much of

of his

his incarceration,

incarceration, specifically specifically prior to his prior to his preliminary

preliminary

his plea

throughout his hearing, throughout hearing, and sentencing, plea and on direct sentencing, on direct appeal, and during appeal, and during his

his first

first PCRA

PCRA petition

petition

and subsequent and but still appeal, but

subsequent appeal, still failed failed to

to take

take any action to

any action to discover

discover these

these allegations.

allegations.

While the While the Petitioner's Petitioner's primary

primary language is Spanish, language is this does Spanish, this does not

not absolve

absolve him

him of

of his

his

burden to burden to plead and prove plead and that he

prove that he exercised

exercised due

due diligence.

diligence. Petitioner

Petitioner cites

cites no

no cases

cases in

in support

support

which have which have found found that

that aa different

different standard

standard applies for non-English applies for non-English speaking speaking petitioners. The fact petitioners. The fact

that the that the Petitioner Petitioner primarily speaks Spanish primarily speaks Spanish did did not

not hamper

hamper his

his ability

ability to

to discover

discover these

these

The Petitioner

allegations. The allegations. Petitioner was was clearly

clearly capable

capable of

of obtaining

obtaining this

this information

information with

with the

the exercise

exercise of

of

due diligence due since he diligence since he has, has, in

in fact,

fact, accessed

accessed this

this information

information and

and relied

relied on

on it

it in

in submitting

submitting

extensive pleadings extensive pleadings to to this

this Court.

Court.

Petitioner's language Petitioner's has not language has not previously limited his previously limited his ability ability to

to access

access information,

information, submit

submit

or represent

pleadings, or pleadings, himself in represent himself in this this case.

case. Petitioner

Petitioner represented

represented himself

himself on

on direct

direct appeal

appeal in

in

Court after Superior Court Superior after his his appellate counsel filed appellate counsel an Anders!

filed an Anders! Brief.

Brief. He

He has

has filed

filed two pro se PCRA

pro se

and when

petitions, and petitions, when this this Court

Court appointed counsel for appointed counsel for his his first

first PCRA

PCRA petition, he objected petition, he objected and and

requested to requested to proceed proceed pro

pro se

se with

with PCRA counsel appointed PCRA counsel appointed as as stand-by

stand-by counsel.

counsel. After

After aa Grazier

Grazier

hcaring wherein hcaring wherein this this Court determined that Court determined that an

an evidentiary

evidentiary hear

hearn

nii gg was necessary despite was necessary despite

counsel's Finley letter, counsel's Finley letter, Petitioner Petitioner was

was permitted to proceed

permitted to proceed pro se. This pro se. This Court

Court then

then conducted

conducted an

an

evidentiary hearing evidentiary hearing where where the

the Petitioner

Petitioner represented himself with represented himself an interpreter with an present. Based interpreter present. Based

on the on the record record and and pleadings before this pleadings before this Court, Court, Petitioner

Petitioner could

could have

have discovered

discovered the

the allegations

allegations

with the with the exercise exercise of of due

due diligence

diligence despite

despite speaking but has Spanish, but

speaking Spanish, has not not pied that he

pied that he did,

did, in

in fact,

fact,

take any take any action action whatsoever whatsoever to

to discover

discover these

these allegations,

allegations,

Petitioner's Brady Petitioner's claim also Brady claim also fails

fails to

to satisfy the government satisfy the interference exception government interference to the exception to the

PCRA timeliness PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify requirement. To for the qualify for the government interference exception, government interference exception, aa petitioner petitioner

needs to needs to establish establish that that his

his failure

failure to

to previously

previously raise

raise the

the claim

claim was

was the result

result of

of interference

interference by

by

government officials, government officials, and and the

the information

information could

could not

not have

have been

been obtained

obtained by

by the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due

diligence. See Commonwealth diligence. See Commonwealth v.

v. Williams,

Williams, 168

168 A,3d

A,3d 97,

97, 106

106 (Pa,

(Pa, 2017)

2017) (citing Commonwealth (citing Commonwealth

941 A.2d

v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1263, 1268

1268 (Pa,

(Pa, 2008)).

2008)).

Petitioner has Petitioner has failed failed to

to aver

aver any

any facts

facts which establish

establish that

that his

his failure

failure to

to previously raise

previously raise

this claim this claim was was the

the result

result of

of government

government interference

interference or

or that

that he

he exercised

exercised due

due diligence, as

diligence, as

discussed above. discussed above. He He did

did not

not provide

provide any

any details

details about

about any

any attempts he made

attempts he made to

to obtain

obtain this

this

information prior information prior to to November

November 2022

2022 and

and he

he did

did not

not assert

assert that

that he

he ever

ever requested information requested information

from the Commonwealth from the Commonwealth related related to

to allegations

allegations of

of misconduct by the

misconduct by the above-named above-named Detectives

Detectives

See Anders See Anders •• California, California, 386

386 U.S,

U.S, 738

738 (1967); see also

(1967); see also Commonwealth Commonwealth MeClendon,

MeClendon, 434

434 A,2d

A,2d 1185

1185 (Pa.

(Pa. 1981),

1981),

before it before it was was provided to him

provided to him by the prison by the law clerk.

prison law clerk. See

See Talbert, 281 A,3d

Talbert, 281 A,3d 1091;

1091;see

see also

also

Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Holman, 2490 EDA Holman, 2490 EDA 2021,

2021, at

at 5 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. Oct.

Oct. 6,

6, 2022)

2022) (non-precedential

(non-precedential

decision) (bald decision) assertions that (bald assertions that due due diligence could not

diligence could not have

have led

led to

to discovery of allegations discovery of of allegations of

misconduct by Detectives misconduct Detectives James James Pitts

Pitts and

and Ronald

Ronald Dove

Dove are

are insufficient

insufficient to

to establish

establish timeliness

timeliness of

of

Brady claim). Brady claim).

Contrary to the Contrary to Petitioner's claims the Petitioner's claims in in his

his 907

907 Response, the due

Response, the due diligence diligence requirement

requirement

does apply does to the apply to the government interference exception.

government interference There has exception. There has never never been

been aa finding

finding by any

any

court that court that the the due

due diligence

diligence requirement to establish requirement to establish aa timeliness timeliness exception under the exception under the PCRA

PCRA

violates the violates the U.S.

U.S. Constitution

Constitution or

or any related federal

any related federal case

case law.

law. The

The due

due diligence

diligence requirement for requirement for

the government the interference exception government interference is imposed exception is on petitioners imposed on through Section petitioners through Section 9545(b)(2). See 9545(b)(2). See

Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Stokes, 959 A.2d Stokes, 959 A.2d 306,

306, 310

310 (Pa.

(Pa. 2008)

2008) (Section 9545(b)(2) "requires (Section 9545(b)(2) "requires aa

to plead

petitioner to petitioner and prove plead and that the

prove that the information information on

on which

which he

he relies

relies could

could not

not have

have been

been

obtained earlier, obtained earlier, despite the exercise despite the exercise of

of due

due diligence"). The Superior diligence"). The Court has Superior Court has explained that, explained that,

even assuming even the failure assuming the to disclose failure to information was disclose information Brady violation, was aa Brady violation, petitioners are not petitioners are not

entitled 1.o entitled 1.o an an indefinite

indefinite period to raise period to raise the

the claim

claim by invocation of

by invocation of the

the government interference government interference

exception. Commonwealth v. exception. Commonwealth v. Smith, Smith, 194

194 A.3d

A.3d 126, 133 (Pa.

126, 133 (Pa. Super.

Super. 2018), The Pennsylvania 2018), The Pennsylvania

Court has Supreme Court Supreme has maintained maintained that

that aa petitioner must establish petitioner must establish due due diligence to satisfy

diligence to the

satisfy the

government interference exception government interference to the exception to the PCRA

PCRA time

time bar. See Commonwealth bar. See Commonwealth v.

v. Reid,

Reid, 235

235 A.3d

A.3d

1124, 1144 1124, 1144 (Pa.

(Pa. 2020);

2020); see

see also

also Commonwealth

Commonwealth •

• Williams, 168 A.3d

Williams, 168 A.3d 97,

97, 106

106 (Pa.

(Pa. 2017).

2017).

While this While this Court

Court lacks

lacks jurisdiction, for the jurisdiction, for the benefit benefit of

of any future proceedings, any future this Court proceedings, this Court

will address will address the the merits

merits of

of Petitioner's

Petitioner's claim.

claim. After

After reviewing the instant reviewing the instant petition, this Court petition, this Court finds finds

that, even that, if the even if the instant instant petition was timely, petition was his claim timely, his claim is

is without

without merit

merit and

and does

does not

not entitle

entitle him

him to

to

relief. relief.

To succeed To succeed on on aa Brady claim, aa defendant Brady claim, defendant must must establish

establish that:

that: (I)

(I) the

the evidence

evidence was

was

the prosecution, by the

suppressed by suppressed either willfully prosecution, either or inadvertently;

willfully or inadvertently; (2)

(2) the

the evidence

evidence at

at issue

issue was

was

favorable to favorable to the the accused,

accused, either

either because it is

because it is exculpatory exculpatory or

or because it. impeaches;

because it. impeaches; and, and, (3)

(3)

ensued. Commonwealth

prejudice ensued. prejudice Commonwealth v.

v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d

Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033,

1033, 1061

1061 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2019)

2019) (citing

(citing

Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Roney, 79 A.3d Roney, 79 A.3d 595,

595, 607

607 (Pa.

(Pa. 2013)).

2013)). A Brady violation A Brady violation arises

arises where

where the

the

evidence is

suppressed evidence suppressed is material material to

to guilt, i.e., where

guilt, i.e., where there

there is

is aa reasonable

reasonable probability

probability that,

that, had

had that

that

evidence been evidence been disclosed, disclosed, the

the outcome

outcome of

of the

the proceeding would have proceeding would have been been different.

Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Cousar, Cousar, 154

154 A.3d

A.3d 287,301

287,301 (Pa.

(Pa. 2017). A reasonable

2017). A reasonable probability probability of

of aa different

different

outcome is outcome is demonstrated demonstrated when

when the

the government's

government's suppression of evidence suppression of evidence undermines undermines confidence

confidence

in the in the result of the result of the trial. Id. (citing trial. Id. United States (citing United States v.

v. Bagley, 473 U.S.

Bagley, 473 U.S. 667

667 (1985)).

(1985)).

The Petitioner's The Brady claim Petitioner's Brady claim fails fails as

as he

he cannot

cannot establish

establish prejudice.

prejudice. Even

Even assuming

assuming that

that

the evidence the evidence was was suppressed and favorable suppressed and favorable to to him,

him, Petitioner

Petitioner cannot

cannot demonstrate

demonstrate prejudice

prejudice as,

as,

even if the even if the Commonwealth Commonwealth had

had disclosed

disclosed these

these allegations,

allegations, there

there is

is not

not aa reasonable

reasonable probability

probability

that the that the result result of of the

the proceedings would have proceedings would have been been different.

different. Petitioner

Petitioner has

has failed

failed to

to show

show that

that the

the

above-named Detectives above-named Detectives committed committed misconduct

misconduct in

in his

his case

case and

and the

the allegations of misconduct allegations of ill misconduct ill

unrelated cases unrelated cases do do not

not establish

establish that

that his

his guilty

guilty plea

plea was

was entered

entered into

into involuntarily, unknowingly, involuntarily, unknowingly,

or unintelligently. or Commonwealth v.

unintelligently. Commonwealth v. Bryant, Bryant, 260

260 A.3d

A.3d 176

176 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2021), denied, 273 appeal denied,

2021), appeal 273

A.3d 509 A.3d 509 (Pa.

(Pa. 2022)

2022) ("A

("A petitioner

petitioner can

can only

only assert

assert a meritorious

meritorious claim

claim for

for PCRA

PCRA relief

relief by

by

demonstrating aa link demonstrating link between an officer's between an officer's misconduct misconduct and

and the

the petitioner's own case.").

petitioner's own case.").

There is There is no no evidence

evidence that

that the

the Detectives

Detectives coerced

coerced the

the statements

statements or

or testimony of his

testimony of his coco

-

defendants, Hector defendants, Hector Rivera Rivera and

and Jose

Jose Padilla,

Padilla, or

or his

his ex-wife,

ex-wife, Fresa

Fresa Pichardo.

Pichardo. None

None of

of the

the witnesses

witnesses

has ever has ever claimed claimed that their statements that their statements to

to police were false

police were false or

or coerced,

coerced, and

and Petitioner

Petitioner attached

attached no

no

certifications or certifications or affidavits affidavits from

from any

any of

of the

the witnesses

witnesses in

in his

his case

case in

in which

which they recanted their they recanted their

12

statements or statements or alleged that police alleged that committed misconduct police committed misconduct in in obtaining

obtaining their

their statements. At best, statements. At best,

Petitioner's claims Petitioner's claims of of coercion

coercion are

are merely

merely speculative.

speculative.

There is There is also also no

no cvidence that the Detectives cvidence that Detectives lied lied about

about the

the existence

existence of

of phone

phone records,

records,

which showed which showed aa call call from

from Petitioner

Petitioner to

to Rivera

Rivera shortly

shortly before

before the

the murder.

murder. Petitioner's

Petitioner's claim

claim that

that

these records these records do do not

not exist

exist is

is contradicted

contradicted by

by the

the search

search warrant

warrant for

for the

the phone

phone records

records from

from May

May

2012 and 2012 and the the affidavit affidavit of

of probable

probable cause

cause to

to arrest

arrest the

the Petitioner,

Petitioner, which

which states

states that

that the

the information

information

provided by provided by aa witness witness was

was corroborated

corroborated by

by phone

phone records. In his

records. In his statement statement and

and testimony,

testimony, Rivera

Rivera

confirmed that confirmed that he he received

received aa call

call from Petitioner

Petitioner shortly

shortly before

before the

the murder.

murder. In

In the

the instant

instant

Petitioner admits

petition, Petitioner petition, admits that that his

his plea counsel told

plea counsel told him

him that

that the

the police had records

police had records which

which

established that established that there there was

was a

a call

call made

made between

between Rivera

Rivera and

and Petitioner

Petitioner around

around the

the time

time of

of the

the

murder. murder.

Even if these Even if these records records do

do not

not exist, it is

exist, it is not

not likely

likely that

that the

the result

result of

of the

the proceedings

proceedings would

would

have been have been different.

different. Both

Both of

of the

the Petitioner's

Petitioner's co-defendants co-defendants provided statements to provided statements to the the police

police

which establish which establish that that Petitioner

Petitioner paid Rivera to paid Rivera to murder

murder the

the decedent.

decedent. Petitioner's

Petitioner's ex-wife

ex-wife also

also

provided information provided information which which showed

showed that

that Petitioner

Petitioner provided

provided aa large

large sum

sum of

of money

money to

to Rivera in

Rivera in

the days the days following following the the murder.

murder. Additionally, at his Additionally, at his guilty guilty plea and at

plea and at sentencing,

sentencing, Petitioner

Petitioner

admitted to admitted to speaking speaking with

with Rivera

Rivera to

to hire

hire him

him to

to murder

murder the

the decedent

decedent and

and clarified

clarified that

that the

the

decision to decision to kill kill the

the decedent

decedent was

was ultimately

ultimately not

not his,

his, but

but the

the criminal

criminal organization with which organization with which he he

was associated, was associated, Petitioner Petitioner also

also apologized

apologized to

to the

the family

family of

of the

the decedent,

decedent, who

who was

was present in the

present in the

courtroom at courtroom at his his guilty

guilty plea.

plea. N.T.

N.T. 1/22/2018

1/22/2018 at

at 12,

12, 20-21,

20-21, 32-34;

32-34; N.T.

N.T. 2/20/2018

2/20/2018 at

at 17-23.

17-23.

Petitioner cannot Petitioner cannot show show prejudice

prejudice amounting

amounting to

to manifest

manifest injustice as he

injustice as he entered

entered into

into his

his

voluntarily, knowingly, plea voluntarily, plea or intelligently, knowingly, or as previously intelligently, as decided by previously decided this Court by this Court and

and Superior

Superior

Court. See Trial Court. See Trial Court Court Opinion,

Opinion, 4/5/18,

4/5/18, at

at 3-6; see also

3-6; see also Commonwealth Commonwealth •

• Delarosa,

Delarosa, 707

707 EDA

EDA

2018 (Pa. 2018 (Pa. Super. Jan. 31, Super. Jan. 31, 2019). As aa result, 2019). As result, Petitioner Petitioner is

is not

not entitled

entitled to

to relief

relief and

and his

his Brady

Brady

claim fails. claim fails.

For the For the foregoing foregoing reasons,

reasons, the

the instant

instant petition is DENIED. The Petitioner is DENIED. Petitioner is is hereby

hereby

notified that notified that he he has

has thirty

thirty (30)

(30) days from the

days from the date

date of

of this

this Order

Order and

and Opinion

Opinion to

to file

file an

an appeal

appeal with

with

the Superior the Superior Court.

Court.

BY THE BY THE COURT,

COURT,

Barbara A. Barbara McDermott, J

A. McDermott, J

Commonwealth v. Raul Commonwealth v. Raul Delarosa, CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 Delarosa, CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

PROOF OF PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVICE

II hereby hereby certify that II am certify that am this

this day

day serving the foregoing serving the foregoing filing filing upon the person(s), upon the and in person(s), and in

the manner the manner indicated indicated below,

below, which

which service

service satisfies

satisfies the

the requirements of Pa.

requirements of Pa. R.

R. Crim.

Crim. P.

P. 114:

114:

District Attorney's

Philadelphia District Philadelphia Office Attorney's Office

Three South Three South Penn

Penn Square

Square

Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PA 19107

19107

Attn: Tracey Attn: Kavanagh, Esq.

Tracey Kavanagh, Esq.

Type of Type of Service:

Service: Regular Mail Regular Mail

Raul Delarosa Raul Delarosa NG7501 NG7501 SCI Coal SCI Coal Township

Township

11 Kelley

Kelley Drive

Drive

Coal Township, Coal PA 17866-1020 Township, PA 17866-1020

Type of Type of Service:

Service: Certified Mail Certified Mail

Dated: August Dated: August 3, 3, 2023

2023

Scan McFadden Scan McFadden Law Clerk Law Clerk to to the

the

Honorable Barbara Honorable Barbara A. McDermott A. McDermott