Com. v. Jordan, F.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: 3322 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: McLaughlin

Opinion

J-S38005-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : FRANK A. JORDAN : : Appellant : No. 3322 EDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 21, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0622511-1986

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 23, 2026

Frank A. Jordan appeals from the order entered denying his request for

relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. He claims he raised a meritorious Brady claim for newly discovered

witness statements.1 We affirm.

In 1986, a jury convicted Jordan of nine counts of second-degree

murder, two counts of arson, two counts of causing a catastrophe, and one

count of aggravated assault. The PCRA court summarized the facts giving rise

to Jordan’s convictions. See Order and Opinion, filed 11/21/24, at 2-5. The

convictions resulted from evidence that Jordan set fire to an apartment

complex, the Latonia Apartments, and caused the death of nine victims.

____________________________________________

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). J-S38005-25

The court imposed six consecutive terms of life imprisonment, three

concurrent terms of life imprisonment, and 15 years of reporting probation.

We affirmed the judgment of sentence in June 1993. See Commonwealth v.

Jordan, No. 03326 Phila. 1992 (Pa.Super. filed June 15, 1993) (unpublished

mem.). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review in November 1993.

Jordan filed the instant petition, his second, in February 2024. In an

amended petition, he alleged that on April 23, 2024, he had reviewed the

District Attorney’s files and found “the names and interviews of two witnesses

who were interviewed at the scene but were not disclosed to Mr. Jordan

through discovery.” Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Pursuant to

the Post-Conviction Relief Act, filed 6/5/24, at ¶ 12. The two witnesses were

Susan Sheehan and Thomas Lazar. The statements with some redactions were

in a document titled, “Investigation Interview Record.” Under the name

“Susan Sheehan” the document read, “[S]aw Frank Jordan as she came out

of apt around 2am, with two other males in Trans Am or Camaro with Jersey

tags. They were hanging in parking lot area. They then left.” See id. at Exhibit

A (“Statements”). Under the name Thomas Lazar, it stated, “Dropped Susan

Sheehan off. Then saw Jordan in car coming down [Bustleton] Ave. near

Wawa, a girl in back of car. Lazar did not know Jordan by name was told name

of Frank Jordan by Susan Sheehan.” Id.

Jordan claimed that these statements were exculpatory “because they

put Mr. Jordan with friends at the time the fire took place and then on

Bustleton Avenue shortly thereafter.” Id. at ¶ 23. Jordan claimed the evidence

-2- J-S38005-25

was allegedly suppressed in violation of Brady. Jordan claimed the unknown

facts and governmental interference time-bar exceptions.

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing, where it heard testimony

from Lazar and the assistant district attorney (“ADA”) who handled Jordan’s

trial. Lazar stated that the night of the fire, he and Sheehan had visited the

Latonia Apartments to see one of his friends. N.T., Hearing Volume I,

10/24/24, at 18, 25, 26. They left around 2:00 a.m. and saw Jordan in the

parking lot. Id. at 27. He explained that he knew Jordan from being in the

area and had seen him a few times. Id. at 18. Jordan asked Lazar “[i]f

somebody was home,” referring to the apartment building. Id. at 27. Lazar

then left to take Sheehan home. Id. at 26, 33, 37. On his way, he saw Jordan

driving in the direction of the building. Id. at 29, 41. He stated this was about

15 minutes after seeing Jordan in the apartment parking lot. Id. at 29. He

also saw firetrucks going in the direction of the apartment. Id. at 19-20. The

next morning, around 8 a.m., Lazar returned to the Latonia Apartments to see

what happened and spoke with the police. Id. at 34.

The ADA testified that if the statements that Jordan found were in his

file, he would have passed them to defense counsel. Id. at 60. He agreed that

the document with statements from Lazar or Sheehan was not listed on the

discovery list. Id. at 57-58. The ADA stated that he did not have an

“independent recollection of turning [the statements] over personally[.]” Id.

at 60. The ADA also stated that he did not believe the statements to be

-3- J-S38005-25

exculpatory since they placed Jordan at the crime scene “at or about the time

that the crime occurred.” Id. at 52.

The court dismissed Jordan’s PCRA petition. Though it found that he

satisfied the unknown facts time-bar exception, it concluded that there was

no Brady violation because Jordan did not sustain prejudice. See Order and

Opinion at 9, 11-12; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). This timely appeal

followed.

Jordan raises the following issue:

Whether the PCRA Court erred in dismissing [Jordan’s] amended PCRA petition where [Jordan] pled and proved that the newly discovered witness statements of Ms. Susan Sheehan and Mr. Thomas Lazar were suppressed by the Commonwealth in violation of Brady v. Maryland and were material, exculpatory and would have changed the outcome of [Jordan’s] trial.

Jordan’s Br. at 5.

When reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we “must determine whether

the PCRA court’s order is supported by the record and free of legal error.”

Commonwealth v. Shields, 347 A.3d 734, 744 (Pa.Super. 2025) (citation

omitted). “The scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and

the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing

party at the PCRA court level.” Id. (citation omitted).

We first agree with the PCRA court that Jordan satisfied the unknown

facts time-bar exception. See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310

(Pa. 2008) (stating this Court must first address the timeliness requirement

of PCRA before discussing merits of Brady claim). The PCRA court found that

-4- J-S38005-25

Jordan first obtained the statements from Lazar and Sheehan in April 2024,

and they “were never provided in discovery[.]” Order and Opinion at 9. Jordan

had one year from the time he discovered the statements to file a petition.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). He filed the instant petition within two months

of discovering the statements. Thus, the court’s determination that Jordan’s

petition is timely is supported by the record.

However, Jordan’s Brady claim fails on the merits. Jordan argues that

he presented a meritorious Brady claim based on the Commonwealth’s failure

to provide Lazar’s and Sheehan’s statements. He states that Sheehan’s

statement discloses that 12 minutes before the 911 call reporting the fire,

“she saw Jordan hanging out in the parking lot with friends.” Jordan’s Br. at

18. He argues that this is “[i]n contrast to the Commonwealth’s theory” of the

case. Id. He further maintains that the statements were exculpatory and

favorable since they placed him “with friends at the time the fire took place

and then on Bustleton Avenue shortly thereafter.” Id. at 14.

Jordan argues that if the statements are believed, “at least one rapidly

spreading fire, if not two, would have had to have burned unnoticed by

residents for a significant amount of time.” Id. at 21-22. He asserts that the

Commonwealth’s case rested on his confession – which he now claims, without

evidence, was coerced – an inmate’s testimony, and a lighter found in Jordan’s

pocket. See id. at 16. Jordan also avers that based on the timeline of events

and Lazar seeing him around 2:00 a.m., he would have had to set both fires

before 2:00 a.m. See id. at 21.

-5- J-S38005-25

As to prejudice, Jordan claims that if the defense had had the

statements, counsel could have interviewed the witnesses and found

additional exculpatory evidence. He alleges that this could have led to expert

testimony “regarding the inability of Jordan to set the fire, given the timeline

of when the first 911 call took place.” Id. at 17.

To succeed on a Brady claim, the petitioner must show that: (1) the

Commonwealth suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence, whether because it is

exculpatory or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant; and (3) the

suppression prejudiced the defendant. Commonwealth v. Mickeals, 335

A.3d 13, 24 (Pa.Super. 2025). Prejudice is established for purposes of Brady

where the petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable probability that had the

evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would

have been different.” Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715, 730 (Pa.

2023) (citation omitted).

Here, the PCRA court determined Jordan’s Brady claim lacked merit

because he failed to show prejudice.

In this case, [Jordan] cannot demonstrate prejudice based on the nondisclosure of Thomas Lazar’s and Susan Sheehan’s comments to Detective Bennett on May 8, 1996. The responses given by both Lazar and Sheehan are not exculpatory of [Jordan] and their disclosure would not likely have resulted in a different outcome at trial. In fact, they corroborate the Commonwealth’s position that [Jordan] was at the Latonia Apartment Complex at the time of the fires. In Detective Bennett’s notes, Sheehan said that she saw [Jordan] in the apartment complex parking lot around 2:00 a.m. roughly twenty minutes before he heard fire trucks

-6- J-S38005-25

responding to the fire.[2] Lazar said that after dropping Sheehan off, he saw [Jordan] driving down Bustleton Avenue towards the Latonia Apartment Complex. Neither of these statements, nor the testimony Lazar gave at the Evidentiary Hearing, calls into question [Jordan’s] guilt.

At trial, the evidence showed that [Jordan] confessed to starting the fires to both police and to a jail informant and that the fires started on the basement floor, initiated with dry materials like paper or cardboard. [Jordan] told Detectives Morton and Cashman that he started the fires with a BIC lighter by setting cardboard on fire in the basements of the two outbuildings of the Latonia Apartment Complex. He showed the detectives the lighter that he use[d] to start the fires. N.T. 9/11/1987 at 110-117.

A fire expert testified that the fire was initiated intentionally and was most likely started by “Class A combustibles,” meaning dry materials like paper or cardboard. N.T. 9/14/1987 at 237. Roger Allen, a resident of the Latonia Apartment Complex, testified that the fire started on the basement floor, where he lived. N.T. 9/14/1987 at 178-182.

While in a detention center, [Jordan] told Francis Kelly that he started the fires to watch the fire engines and that he did so with paper, rags, and a lighter. [Jordan] told Kelly that he planned to evade responsibility for the fires by claiming to be with a girl at the time the fires were set and, if that didn’t work, he would claim that his “brain operation” would supply a defense.

Order and Opinion at 10-11.

The PCRA court’s decision to dismiss Jordan’s PCRA petition is supported

by the record and free of legal error. Jordan fails to demonstrate that there is

a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense,

2 The court states that Sheehan heard fire trucks. However, Lazar testified that he saw Jordan in the parking lot around 2:00 a.m. and saw fire trucks going in the direction of the apartments between 5 and 20 minutes later. See N.T., 10/24/24, at 20, 27, 29, 31-32, 38.

-7- J-S38005-25

the result of the proceeding would have been different. As the PCRA court

pointed out, Jordan admitted to causing the fires and provided police with the

instrument used to start them, a lighter. Moreover, an informant testified that

Jordan confessed to setting the fire. Additionally, Jordan’s claim that the

statements make it impossible for him to have set the fires is speculative. The

call for the fire came in at 2:13 a.m., and Jordan was last seen at the

apartment in the parking lot. This, paired with his confession to the fires, was

overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and as the PCRA court pointed out, the

statements corroborate the Commonwealth’s theory of the case. We therefore

affirm.

Order affirmed.

Date: 2/23/2026

-8-