Com. v. Saunder, S.
This text of Com. v. Saunder, S. (Com. v. Saunder, S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S33046-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAWN SAUNDERS : : Appellant : No. 2012 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001537-2000
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2025
Appellant Shawn Saunders appeals from the order dismissing his
seventh Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that the
PCRA court erred in concluding that Appellant failed to satisfy an exception to
the PCRA’s one-year time bar. After review, we affirm on the basis of the
PCRA court’s opinion.
A prior panel of this Court briefly summarized the relevant facts and
procedural history of this matter as follows:
On October 18, 1999, Appellant, Omar Davis, and David Burroughs traveled together to Ninth and Lincoln Streets in Chester so that Davis could purchase marijuana. On the way, Appellant, who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that he intended to rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the controlled substance. When they arrived at their destination, Appellant put on a ski cap and covered his face. Appellant, Davis, and Burroughs encountered Cleven Pender and Shammer ____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. J-S33046-25
Thomas. Davis rifled through Thomas’ pockets, and Appellant told Pender to give him money. When Pender started to back away, Appellant shot Pender in the chest, killing him. Appellant was twenty-two years old when he murdered Pender.
Appellant was convicted [of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and firearms not to be carried without a license 2] on March 9, 2001, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On August 27, 2002, we affirmed, Commonwealth v. Saunders, [2452 EDA 2001,] 809 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. [filed Aug. 27,] 2002) (unpublished memorandum), and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on December 2, 2003. Commonwealth v. Saunders, [731 MAL 2002,] 839 A.2d 352 (Pa. 2003).
Commonwealth v. Saunders, 2818 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1103040, at *1
(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.). Appellant was denied
relief on his six previous PCRA petitions. See id. at *1-2; see also
Commonwealth v. Saunders, 3132 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1103041, at *2
(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.).
Appellant filed his seventh PCRA petition pro se on April 23, 2021. The
PCRA court appointed counsel, and Appellant subsequently filed an amended
and counseled seventh PCRA petition on August 26, 2022. See Am. PCRA
Pet., 8/26/22. In the petition, Appellant argued that the Commonwealth failed
to provide Appellant’s trial counsel with a document, which Appellant alleged
was a police report containing a witness statement exonerating Appellant, and
claimed that he satisfied the governmental interference or newly discovered
fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar. See id. at 3-13.
____________________________________________
2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(b), 3701, 903, and 6106, respectively.
-2- J-S33046-25
The PCRA court scheduled a hearing “limited to addressing . . . whether
[Appellant] has met the proof requirements under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)
and/or (ii) of the Post Conviction Relief Act necessary to the court’s
jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the collateral pleading’s merits.” PCRA
Ct. Order, 1/6/23 (some formatting altered and endnotes omitted).
The PCRA court held hearings on February 24, 2023 and November 20,
2023. In an order filed on June 28, 2024, the PCRA court dismissed
Appellant’s seventh PCRA petition. Appellant filed a timely appeal, and both
the PCRA court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue:
Whether the Honorable PCRA court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to address the merits of [Appellant’s] amended petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, and dismissing the petition, where the PCRA court admitted into evidence, as having been properly authenticated, a police report embodying an interview with an individual who provided exculpatory information, the report was not provided to the defense prior to trial, and [Appellant] pled and proved the time limit exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 954[5(]b)(1)(i), (ii).
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).
In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review
is well settled:
[O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.
-3- J-S33046-25
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(citations omitted and formatting altered).
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a threshold jurisdictional question.
See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014); see
also Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(stating that “no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition”
(citation omitted)). “A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent one,
must be filed within one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence
became final, unless he pleads and proves one of the three exceptions outlined
in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).” Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa.
2012) (citation and footnote omitted). A judgment of sentence becomes final
at the conclusion of direct review, or at the expiration of time for seeking such
review. See id. at 17.
Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a
judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of
the following three statutory exceptions:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
-4- J-S33046-25
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner asserting one of these exceptions
must file a petition within one year of the date the claim could have first been
presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).3 It is the petitioner’s “burden to
allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.”
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1094 (Pa. 2010) (citations
omitted and some formatting altered). If a PCRA petition is untimely, and
none of the timeliness exceptions are met, courts do not have jurisdiction to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S33046-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHAWN SAUNDERS : : Appellant : No. 2012 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001537-2000
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2025
Appellant Shawn Saunders appeals from the order dismissing his
seventh Post Conviction Relief Act1 (PCRA) petition. Appellant argues that the
PCRA court erred in concluding that Appellant failed to satisfy an exception to
the PCRA’s one-year time bar. After review, we affirm on the basis of the
PCRA court’s opinion.
A prior panel of this Court briefly summarized the relevant facts and
procedural history of this matter as follows:
On October 18, 1999, Appellant, Omar Davis, and David Burroughs traveled together to Ninth and Lincoln Streets in Chester so that Davis could purchase marijuana. On the way, Appellant, who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that he intended to rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the controlled substance. When they arrived at their destination, Appellant put on a ski cap and covered his face. Appellant, Davis, and Burroughs encountered Cleven Pender and Shammer ____________________________________________
1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. J-S33046-25
Thomas. Davis rifled through Thomas’ pockets, and Appellant told Pender to give him money. When Pender started to back away, Appellant shot Pender in the chest, killing him. Appellant was twenty-two years old when he murdered Pender.
Appellant was convicted [of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and firearms not to be carried without a license 2] on March 9, 2001, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On August 27, 2002, we affirmed, Commonwealth v. Saunders, [2452 EDA 2001,] 809 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. [filed Aug. 27,] 2002) (unpublished memorandum), and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on December 2, 2003. Commonwealth v. Saunders, [731 MAL 2002,] 839 A.2d 352 (Pa. 2003).
Commonwealth v. Saunders, 2818 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1103040, at *1
(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.). Appellant was denied
relief on his six previous PCRA petitions. See id. at *1-2; see also
Commonwealth v. Saunders, 3132 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1103041, at *2
(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.).
Appellant filed his seventh PCRA petition pro se on April 23, 2021. The
PCRA court appointed counsel, and Appellant subsequently filed an amended
and counseled seventh PCRA petition on August 26, 2022. See Am. PCRA
Pet., 8/26/22. In the petition, Appellant argued that the Commonwealth failed
to provide Appellant’s trial counsel with a document, which Appellant alleged
was a police report containing a witness statement exonerating Appellant, and
claimed that he satisfied the governmental interference or newly discovered
fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar. See id. at 3-13.
____________________________________________
2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(b), 3701, 903, and 6106, respectively.
-2- J-S33046-25
The PCRA court scheduled a hearing “limited to addressing . . . whether
[Appellant] has met the proof requirements under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)
and/or (ii) of the Post Conviction Relief Act necessary to the court’s
jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the collateral pleading’s merits.” PCRA
Ct. Order, 1/6/23 (some formatting altered and endnotes omitted).
The PCRA court held hearings on February 24, 2023 and November 20,
2023. In an order filed on June 28, 2024, the PCRA court dismissed
Appellant’s seventh PCRA petition. Appellant filed a timely appeal, and both
the PCRA court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue:
Whether the Honorable PCRA court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to address the merits of [Appellant’s] amended petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, and dismissing the petition, where the PCRA court admitted into evidence, as having been properly authenticated, a police report embodying an interview with an individual who provided exculpatory information, the report was not provided to the defense prior to trial, and [Appellant] pled and proved the time limit exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 954[5(]b)(1)(i), (ii).
Appellant’s Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).
In reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, our standard of review
is well settled:
[O]ur standard of review from the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error. The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s legal conclusions.
-3- J-S33046-25
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(citations omitted and formatting altered).
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is a threshold jurisdictional question.
See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014); see
also Commonwealth v. Ballance, 203 A.3d 1027, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(stating that “no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely PCRA petition”
(citation omitted)). “A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent one,
must be filed within one year of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence
became final, unless he pleads and proves one of the three exceptions outlined
in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1).” Commonwealth v. Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa.
2012) (citation and footnote omitted). A judgment of sentence becomes final
at the conclusion of direct review, or at the expiration of time for seeking such
review. See id. at 17.
Courts may consider a PCRA petition filed more than one year after a
judgment of sentence becomes final if the petitioner pleads and proves one of
the following three statutory exceptions:
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States;
(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or
(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively.
-4- J-S33046-25
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner asserting one of these exceptions
must file a petition within one year of the date the claim could have first been
presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).3 It is the petitioner’s “burden to
allege and prove that one of the timeliness exceptions applies.”
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1094 (Pa. 2010) (citations
omitted and some formatting altered). If a PCRA petition is untimely, and
none of the timeliness exceptions are met, courts do not have jurisdiction to
address the substance of the underlying claims. Commonwealth v. Cox,
146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016).
Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant
law, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant’s seventh PCRA petition was
untimely and that he failed to satisfy an exception to the PCRA’s one-year
time bar. The PCRA court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims and
correctly concluded that he was not entitled to relief. See PCRA Ct. Op.,
1/31/25, at 1-31. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s
opinion.4 See id.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
3 On October 24, 2018, the General Assembly amended Section 9545(b)(2)
and extended the time for filing a petition from sixty days to one year from the date the claim could have been presented. See 2018 Pa.Legis.Serv.Act 2018-146 (S.B. 915), effective December 24, 2018. The amendment applies only to claims arising one year before the effective date of this section, December 24, 2017, or thereafter.
4 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court’s opinion in the
event of further proceedings.
-5- J-S33046-25
Date: 11/25/2025
-6- Circulated 10/29/2025 11.09 AM Circulated 1 11:09@1-3f-2025] 0/29/2025~ae [6_~inion AM
6_0pInibn Dated 01-31-2025
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASCRIMINAL CRIMINAL .
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1537-00 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1537-00
v. v. r cr ·' +. SHAWN SAUNDERS SHAWNSAUNDERS Superior Court No. 2012 EDA 2b24 r Superior Court No. 2012
Michael J. Flowers, Esquire - Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth;_ .c EDA^24 · tr d:..-11 ;'-:
3 -zja .g·pet -.r a.5 C
o '- .
r} William P. Wismer, Esquire -- Attorney for Shawn Saunders g- -.+€2 5, J.� :;..J
rc\ . I
r<»
OPINION OPINION
Kelly, J. J. Kelly, ·Date: January 31, 2025 Date: January 31, 2025
I. Introduction I. Introduction
Shawn Saunders (hereafter referred to as "the Defendant or "Defendant Saunders") s Sha™ Saunders (hereafter referred to as “fa Defendant” or “Defendant Saunders”) hL timely faety filedfiled a counseled notice of appeal' from this court's order dated June 28, 2024, dismissipg a counsded noaoe of
his lawyer's amended Post Conviction Relief Act' petition4 following evidentiary hearings.5 his amended Post Conviction Relief Act? petition’ following evidential hearings .=
For those reasons detailed infra, after this court considered the whole of the PC , For those reasons detailed infra, after this court considered fa whole of fa Pell i evidentiary presentation and the parties respective arguments, as well as conducted an independent evidentiary presentation and fa parties’ tespective arguments, as well as conducted an indoJu and thorough review of the salient direct and collateral case records, in accord with the relevant Ilw ^d borough review of the salient direct and collateral case records, in accord with the relevant ikjv as applied to the credible, salient evidence, the Defendant simply did not sustain his threshold burden as applied to the credible, salient evidence, fa Defendant simply did not sustain his threshold burin of establishing the courts jurisdictional authority necessary to adjudicating his PCRA claims alle of establishing fa courts jurisdictional authority necessaty to adjudicating his PCRA claims aided 6 Accordingly, Defendant Saunders' counseled, collateral pleading was dismissed. Se 1 merits. 6 Accordingly, merits. Defendant Saunders’ I counseled, collateral pleading was dismissed. See । I
Order Orderdated datedJune June28, 28,2024. 2024.See Seealso alsoDefendant’s Defendant'sAmended AmendedPCRA PCRAPetition Petitiondocketed docketedAugust August26, 26,,
2022. 2022. ' i
Upon Uponthe thefiling filingofofthe theDefendant’s Defendant'stimely timelyappeal appealnotice, notice,the thecourt courtdirected directedDefendant Defend ।
Saunders'attorney Saunders’ attorney.totolodge aPa.R.A.P.1925(b) lodgeaPa.R.A.P. concisestatement 1925(b)concise statementofoferrors errorscomplained complainedofofononappeg appedfl I andforwarded and forwardedthat thatsame samedayday(July (July29,29,2024) 2024)totothe theDelaware DelawareCounty CountyJudicial JudicialSupport Officefcfdr|r SupportOffice I proceeding and of-record lodging its proceeding and of-record lodging its July 29, 2024, order. See Order dated July 29, 2024; and July29, 2024, order. See Order dated July 29, 2024, and AOP ( AOP'
CaseDocket. Case Docket. Inexplicably thecourt’s Inexplicablythe court's 1925(b) orderdated 1925(b)order datedJuly July29, 29,2024, 2024,just justfour four(4) (4)days days
subsequenttotothe subsequent theDefendant’s Defendant'snotice noticeofofappeal beingfiled, appealbeing filed,was wasnot notdocketed docketedby bythe theDelawaie Delaw
County Office County Office ofofJudicial Judicial Support until September Supportuntil September 9,9, 2024. 2024. See AOPC docket. See AOPC docket. Hence, Hence, ti e e
DefendantSaunders’ Defendant Saunders'1925(b) 1925(b)statement statementlodged lodgedon onOctober October9,9,2024, 2024,was wasdone donesosoininatimely a timelymanner! manner I
Seegenerally See Pa.R.Crim.P.114(B)(1)(3). generallyPa.R.Crim.P. 114(3)1)(3).
TheDefendant The Defendantcouches couchesthe theissue issueraised raisedon onappeal appealininthe thefollowing followingmanner: manner:
Whetherthe Whether theHonorable HonorablePCRA PCRACourt erred asas aamatter Court erred matter ofoflaw lawandand , abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to abused its discretion in not finding that it has jurisdiction to address address । the merits the merits of ofDefendant’s Defendant's Amended Amended Petition Petition forfor Relief Reliefunder under thethe , PCRA, and dismissing the Petition, where the PCRA PCRA, and dismissing the Petition, where the PCRA court admitted court admitted ; intoevidence, into evidence,asashaving havingbeenbeenproperly authenticated,aapolice properlyauthenticated, policereport report J embodying an embodying an interview interview withwith an an individual individual who who provided provided . । exculpatory information, the report was not provided to exculpatory information, the report was not provided to the defense the defense । prior to trial, and Defendant pied and proved prior to trial, and Defendant pled and proved the time limit the time limit I exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(i),(ii). exceptions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9545(b)(i),(ii). ! I I 1925(b) Statement 1925(b) Statement dated dated October October 9, 9,2024. See also 2024. See AOPC Docket. also AOPC Docket. i
Upon an Upon an examination examination of ofthe the relevant relevant and and credible record, as credible record, as well well as as given the material given the material ,
standard of standard of such such appellate appellate review, review, the the court’s court's dismissal dismissal order should be .order77 should be affirmed. affirmed.
22 ILII.Case CaseHistory History (
The Therelevant relevantfactual factualsummary summaryand andprocedural proceduralhistory historyasaselicited elicitedatatthe theDefendant’s Defendant'strial trialand an ।
subsequent subsequentpost-conviction post-convictionpursuits pursuitsisistaken takenfrom fromthe theSuperior SuperiorCourt’s Court'smemorandum memorandumopinion opinioncited cite
infra infraand andquoted quotedininthe thesubsequently subsequentlyissued issuedfederal federalhabeas habeasreport reportand andrecommendation recommendationinfra infraad
follows: follows: : I I , ~David 1 OnOn October October 18, 18, 1999, 1999, [Petitioner], [Petitioner], OmarOmar Davis, Davis, and and David । Burroughs Burroughstraveled traveledtogether togethertotoNinth Ninthand andLincoln LincolnStreets StreetsininChester Chester । sosothat thatDavis Daviscould couldpurchase purchasemarijuana. marijuana.On Onthe theway, way,[Petitioner], [Petitioner], i who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that he intended who was armed with a gun, informed his cohorts that he intendedtoto 1 rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the controlled rob the individual who was going to sell Davis the controlled ! substance. substance.When Whentheytheyarrived arrivedatatheir theirdestination, destination,[Petitioner] [Petitioner]putputonon J a ski cap and covered his face. [Petitioner], Davis, and Burroughs a ski cap and covered his face. [Petitioner], Davis, and Burroughs । encountered encountered elevenCleven Pender Pender andand Shammer Shammer Thomas. Thomas. Davis Davis rifled rifled i through Thomas’ pockets, and [Petitioner] through Thomas' pockets, and [Petitioner]told Pender to give him told Pender to give him । money. money.When WhenPender Penderstarted startedtotoback backaway, away,[Petitioner] [Petitioner]shot shotPender Pender i in the chest, killing him. [Petitioner] was twenty-two years old when in the chest, killing him. [Petitioner] was twenty-two years old when i he murdered he murdered Pender. Pender. 1 I
Commonwealth Commonwealthv.• Saunders, Saunders,No. No.2818 2818EDA EDA2016, 2016, [168 [168A.3d A.3d346 346 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2017)(Table)], 20/7 2017)Table)],2017 WL WL 1103040 and 1103041 1103040and 1103041 atat*1 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super.March March24, 24,2017). 2017). I Il
Defendant Defendant Saunders Saunders proceeded proceeded toto trial trial by byjury jury and and was was convicted convicted on on March March 9,9, 2001, 2001, if t second degree second degreemurder, 8robbery, murder,' robbery,' 9 conspiracy conspiracytoto commit commitrobbers, robbers,' andpossession 10 and possessionofofananunlicens unlicensbd;d .. iI firearm.11ll Id. firearm. Id On OnApril April 9,9, 2001, 2001, he hewas sentenced to was sentenced to life life imprisonment. imprisonment.' 12 Id. Id. The The Superior Superior Court Co I.ft i
affirmed affirmed on on August August 27, 27, 2002, 2002, [809 [809 A.2d A.2d 964 964 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2002)(Table)] 2002)(Table)] and and on on December December 2,2, 20C 3,I 2003, JI the P the ennsylvania Supreme Pennsylvania Supreme Court Court denied denied allowance allowance of. appeal. [576 of, appeal. [576 Pa. Pa. 712, 712, 839 839 A.2d A.2d 352 3 2. I
Id. I (2003)(Table)] Id. (2003)(Table)] !
The The Defendant Defendant then then began began aa lengthy lengthy engagement engagement with with the the collateral, collateral, post-convictio'n post-convic
process, process, filing filing to date date aa total total of of seven seven (7) (7) PCRA PCRA petitions. petitions. His His collateral collateral activity activity was was summarised summarized
by by the the Superior Superior Court Court in in its its opinion opinion affirming affirming the the denial of his denial of sixth (6) his sixth th) PCRA PCRA petition petition as follows: as follow^:
33 [Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed filed aa timely timely PCRA PCRA petition petition on on February February 7, 7, 2005, 2005, and and counsel was appointed. Counsel was allowed to withdraw, and relief counsel was appointed. Counsel was allowed to withdraw, and relief was was denied. denied. Appellant Appellant diddid not not appeal. appeal. On On August August 14, 14, 2009, 2009, Appellant Appellant filed filed aa second second PCRA PCRA petition, petition, which which was was dismissed dismissed asas untimely. untimely. OnOn appeal, appeal, we we affirmed. affirmed. Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Saunders, Saunders, 15 15 A.3d A.3d 538 538 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2010) 2010) (unpublished (unpublishedmemorandum), memorandum), 3241 3241 EDA EDA 2009]. 2009].
[Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed filed aa third third PCRA PCRA petition petition on on March March 15,15, 2012, 2012, claiming claiming that that he he was was entitled entitl to to reliefunder relief underMiller Millerv.». Alabama, Alabama, 132 132 S.Ct. S.Ct. 2455 2455 (2012), (2012), wherein wherein the the United United States States Supreme Supreme Court Court held held that that itit was was unconstitutional, unconstitutional, under underthethe Eighth Eighth Amendment’s Amendment's prohibition prohibition against against cruel cruel and and unusual unusual punishment, punishment, to to sentence sentence aa juvenile juvenile homicide homicide offender offender toto aa mandatory mandatory term term ofof life life imprisonment imprisonment without without parole. parole. Relief Relief was was denied, denied, andand we we affirmed. affirmed. Commonwealth Commonwealth v.». Saunders, Saunders, 102 102 A.3dA.3d 519 519 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2014)[Table](unpublished 2014)[Table](unpublished memorandum) memorandum)[2014 WL WL 10965060 10965060 (text), (text), 1476 1476 EDA EDA 2013]. 2013]. InIn this this third Saunders decision, we concluded that [Petitioner’s]judgment third Saunders decision, we concluded that [Petitioner's] judgment of ofsentence sentence became becamefinalfinal on on March March 1, 1, 2004, 2004, ninety ninety days days after after our our Supreme Supreme Court Court denied deniedreview, review, andand that thatAppellant Appellant had had until untilMarch March 1, 1, 2005, 2005, to to present present aa timely timely PCRA PCRA petition. petition. WeWe observed observed that that Appellant’s Appellant's petition petition was was notnot timely. timely. We We also also held held that that the the Miller Miller decision decision did did not not apply apply to to him him because because he he was was anan adult adult when when he he committed committed the the murder murder in in question. question. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Cintora, Cintora, 69 69 A.3d A.3d 759 759 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2013) 2013) {Miller (Miller does does not not apply apply toto homicide homicide offenders who are eighteen years of age or older when they offenders who are eighteen years of age or older when they committed committed the the murder). murder). *2 2 Next, Next, [Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed filed aa motion motion arguing arguing that that the the court court had had no no authority to impose its sentence and seeking facts regarding its authority to impose its sentence and seeking facts regarding its decision. decision. The The motion motion was was treated treated as as aa fourth fourth PCRA PCRA petition petition and and denied denied as as untimely. untimely. We We once once again again affirmed affirmed the the denial denial of of relief, relief, agreeing agreeing that that the the motion motion waswas anan untimely untimely PCRA PCRA petition. petition. Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Saunders, Saunders, 122122 A.3d A.3d 1126 1126 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2015) 2015) [(Table)](unpublished memorandum), [2015 WL 7078875] (text), [(Table)](unpublished memorandum), [2015 WL 7078875] (text), 3383 3383 EDA EDA 2014]. 2014]. On On April April 11, 11, 2016, 2016, [Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed hishis fifth fifth PCRA PCRA petition. petition. He He once again invoked the once. again invoked the Miller decision. On August 15, 2016, an decision. On August 15, 2016, an order order was was issued issued denying denying the the fifth fifth petition. petition. The The Court Court held held that that [Petitioner] [Petitioner] was was not not entitled entitled to to relief reliefunder under Miller Miller because because he he was was an an adult adult when when hehe committed committed thethe murder murder andand because because the the matter matter was was already already litigated litigated in in Appellant’s Appellant's fourth fourth PCRA PCRA petition. petition. [Petitioner] [Petitioner] appealed that decision, which .was affirmed. [See Commonwealth appealed that decision, which ... was affirmed. [See Commonwealth v.• Saunders, Saunders, No.No. 2818 2818 EDA EDA 2016,2016, [168 [168 A.3d A.3d 346 346 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2017)(Table)], 2017)Table)], 20172017 WLWL 1103040 1103040 and and 1103041, 1103041, atat *1 *1 and and *2 2 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. Mar. Mar. 24, 24, 2017)[(text)]. 2017)[(text)].
44 After After [Petitioner] [Petitioner] filed filedhishisfifth fifthPCRA PCRApetition, petition,hehe ...... filed filedaapetition petition for for writ writ ofof habeas habeas corpus corpus in in the the civil civil division division of of thethe Court Court ofof Comm Common on Pleas Pleas ofofDelaware DelawareCounty. County. That Thatmotion motionwaswastransferred transferredto to the the criminal criminal division. ... The division .... The court court treated treated thethe request request for for relief reliefas as [Petitioner’s] [Petitioner's] sixth PCRA petition, sixth ·PCRA petition, and, and, after after issuing issuing notice, notice, dismissed dismissed it. it. In Inthe the notice, notice, the the PCRA PCRA court court opined opined that thatthe the petition petition was was untimely untimely and andthethe issues issues itit contained contained werewerepreviously previously litigated. litigated. Id Id. atat *1--2. 1-2. HeHe appealed appealedthe the denial denial of ofhishis sixth sixthPCRA PCRApetition, petition, andand the the superior superior court court [sic] [sic] affirmed. affirmed. Id. Id. atat *1. 1.
Saunders Saundersv.v. Brittain, Brittain, et etal, al, 2020 2020 WL WL 5505148, 5505148, infra, infra, quoting quotingand andciting citing Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Sounder. Saunder}> supra (Emphasis added). supra (Emphasis added).
On On March March 12, 12, 2019, 2019, Defendant Defendant Saunders Saunders filed filed aapro se federal prose federal habeas habeas petition. petition. See See CV-19 CV-19,■ ‘
1010. 1010. On On March March 15, 15, 2019, 2019, the the Honorable Honorable Eduardo Eduardo C. C. Robreno Robreno referred referred the the matter matter for for preparation' preparatio
of ofaa report report and and recommendation. recommendation. United United States States Magistrate Magistrate David David R. R. Strawbridge’s Strawbridge's resultant resultant report repo I i recommended recommended the the summary summary dismissal dismissal of of the the Defendant’s Defendant's habeas habeas application. application. See See 2020 2020 WL|
5505148 5505148 supra. supra. Upon Upon review, review, Judge Judge Robreno Robreno approved approved and and adopted adopted the the report report and and its; is!I
recommendation recommendation and and denied denied and and dismissed dismissed Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' federal federal habeas habeas corpus corpus petition. petitio
See See Order Order dated dated September September 11, 2020, 11, 2020, Robreno, Robreno, J., J., 2020 2020 WL WL 5501308 5501308 (U.S.D.C.)(E.D. (U.S.D.C.)CE.D. Pa.). Pa.). j
After After his his unsuccessful unsuccessful foray foray into into federal federal court, court, the the Defendant Defendant returned returned to to state state court. court. With Wi I
the original original assigned, assigned, presiding presiding trial trial judge, judge, the the Honorable Honorable Joseph Joseph P, P, Cronin, Cronin, Jr. Jr. (now (now retired) retired) beirg beirlg
elected elected the the thirty-second thirty-second (32 nd) judicial (32") judicial district’s district's (Delaware (Delaware County) County) president president judge judge in in 2008, 2008, tie
above-captioned above-captioned matter matter had had been been reassigned reassigned to to the the Honorable Honorable James James P. P. Bradley. Bradley. The The Defendant ’s Defendant's
pro se PCRA prose petition dated April PCRApetition April 5, 5, 2021, 2021, and docketed on April April 23, 23, 2021, 2021, and a subsequent subsequentpro pro .tese ' Supplemental Supplemental PCRA PCRA Petition Petition dated dated November November 1, 1, 2021, 2021, and and docketed docketed on on November November 10, 10, 2021', 202l1, I precipitated the appointment appointment of two two (2) different different attorneys by Judge Bradley, Bradley, both of whom whom wereeI
later permitted permitted to withdraw withdraw due to conflicts. conflicts. See AOPC Case Docket. Docket. ; i i
55 With Withthe theage agecompelled compelledretirement retirementof ofJudge JudgeBradley Bradleyasasof ofDecember December31, 31,2021, 2021,the theabove¬ above
captioned captionedmatter matterwas wasultimately ultimatelyininJune June2022 2022reassigned reassignedtotothis thiscourt courtand andpresently presentlyappointed appointedPCRA PC
counsel counsel assumed assumedhis hisrole rolein inrepresenting representingDefendant Defendant Saunders. Saunders. See See Order Orderdated dated April April28, 28,2022 2022
Defendant’s Defendant's Amended Amended Petition Petition docketed docketed August August 26, 26, 2022; 2022; PCRA H�aring Transcripts PCRA Hearing N.T / Transcripts - - N.T I
2/24/23 2/24/23 and and1 l1/20/23 ; and 1 /20/23; andPetitioner’s Petitioner'sMemorandum Memorandumof ofLaw Lawdocketed docketedMarch March6,6,2024. 2024. j
The The Defendant Defendant through through his his lawyer lawyer on onAugust August 26, 26, 2022, 2022, filed filed an an amended amended PCRA PCRApetition petitio i i averring averringthe theprosecution prosecutionimproperly improperlyfailed failedtotoprovide provideDefendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' trial trial counsel counselan analleged allege ’
police police report report —-- witness witness statement statement of of an an Eric Eric Pettiford Pettiford and and that that the the “governmental "governmental interference . interference]'’ I ! I ! exception to exception to the the otherwise . otherwise applicable applicable PCRA PCRA time bar vested time bar vested the the courts courts with with the the jurisdiction; jurisdictiof. I
necessary necessaryto to decide decide such such aa claim’s claim's merits. merits. See SeeDefendant’s Defendant'sAmended AmendedPetition Petition docketed docketedAugust 2 J, i August2t
2022, 2022, pp. pp. 4-14. 4-14. See Seegenerally generally42 Pa.C.S. §95454(b)(l)(i)(“ 42 Pa.C.S. §95454(b)(l)(i)(" ... ... [F]ailure [F]ailure to to raise raise the the claim claim was was ths I result of result ofgovernment government interference interference with withthe thepresentation ofthe presentationof the claim claim in inviolation violation of ofthe the Constitutio a Constitutioh' I or or laws . .”). laws... ."). l I This court This court by by an an order order of ofAugust 30, 2022, August 30, 2022, directed directed the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to to lodge lodge aa responf responjed - I to to the the Defendant’s Defendant's counseled, counseled, amended amended collateral collateral petition. petition. See See Order Order dated dated August August 30, 30, 2022. 2022. St Sdee
also also Defendant’s Defendant's Amended Amended Petition Petition docketed docketed August August 26, 26, 2022. 2022. See See generally generally Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 906. 906.'
After After an an unopposed unopposed extension extension request request was was allowed, allowed, the the prosecution prosecution on on December December 13, 202L� 13, 202 I filed its filed its reply reply in in the the form form of Motion to of aa Motion to Dismiss Dismiss Amended Amended Petition Petition Under Under the the Post Post Conviction Convictionh
Relief Act Act .... .... See See Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss Dismiss ... dated dated December December. 13, 13, 2022. 2022. See See also albI I
Defendant’s Defendant's Amended Amended Petition docketed August August 26, 26, 2022; 2022; Order Order dated dated August August 30, 30, 2022; 2022; and Or r and Order i dated dated October October 14, 14, 2022. 2022. See generally Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 906. 906. t
I 66 Following Followingits itsthorough thoroughreading readingof ofthe thecompeting competingdefense defenseand andCommonwealth Commonwealthpleadings, pleadings,asa i
well wellasasaareview reviewof ofthe theabove-caption above-captionmatter’s matter'sdirect directand andcollateral collateralcase casehistories, histories,this th.iscourt courtvia viaar . I
prder orderof ofJanuary January5,5,2023, 2023,listed listedaacollateral collateralevidentiary evidentiaryhearing hearinglimited limitedtoto"... “ .. whether whetherthe thepetitions petitione •
has hasmeet meetthe the‘proof 'proofrequirements requirementsunder under42 42Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S.§9545(b)(i) §9545(b)(i)oror(ii) (ii)of ofthe thePost PostConviction ConvictionRelie:: Relie |
Act Actnecessary necessarytotothe the courts courtsjurisdictional jurisdictional authority authoritytotoadjudicate adjudicatethe thecollateral collateralpleading’s merits.' I ! pleading'smerits.’ I HearingNotice Hearing Noticedated datedJanuary January5,5,2023 2023 (endnotes (endnotesomitted). omitted). jj
Such Such an an evidentiary evidentiaryhearing hearing was was commenced commenced as as scheduled scheduled on on February February 24, 24, 2023. 2023. Sec Se
Hearing HearingNotice Noticedated datedJanuary January5,5,2023; 2023;andN.T. and N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp. 1-92. 1-92. The Thepetitioner’s petitioner'sPCRA PCRAcounsel, counse ।
Attorney AttorneyWismer, Wismer,requested requestedthe thehearing hearingbe beadjourned adjournedafter aftersome somedefense defensewitness witnesstestimony testimonytotoaffon afforI j
him himthe theopportunity opportunityto to explore explorethe thepossibility possibilityof ofsecuring securingadditional additionalevidence. evidence. N.T. N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp. 90-1 90-! I 92. 92. Once Once such such was was better better understood, understood, he would contact he would contact the the court court toto relist relist for for resumption resumption thej thb; collateral collateral proceeding. proceeding. N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, p. p. 92. 92. See Seegenerally generally Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(B). 908(B). !
I The The court court appreciating appreciating the the nature nature of of that that which which defense defense counsel counsel was was attempting attempting ta t
accomplish waited accomplish waited aa reasonable reasonable period period of oftime time before inquiring as before inquiring as to to the the status status of ofthose those efforts. efforts. See S el
Correspondence Correspondence dated dated June June 27, 27, 2023. 2023. See See also also N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 90-91. 90-91. The The lawyer lawyer for for tbJ]el l Defendant Defendant timely timely responded responded and and suggested suggested aa listing in the listing in the mid mid to to latter latter part part of ofAugust August 2023 2023. St e. Se Correspondence Correspondence dated dated June June 29, 29, 2023. 2023. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth relatedly relatedly advised advised that witness it'it that aa witness iI anticipated anticipated presenting presenting would would not not be be available in the available in the defense defense proffered proffered mid mid to to late late August August 202 20 3 I timeframe timeframe and and requested requested aa scheduling sometime sometime after after the the first first week week of of September September 2023 2023. See See Ems E fi1I
Correspondence Correspondence dated June June 29, 29, 2023 2023. Chambers Chambers personnel personnel solicited from from the the involved attornes involved attome; 4 I next next dates dates of their and/or and/or necessary necessary witnesses’ witnesses' availability availability and from from among among those dates, it dates, consisteht
i
7 with withthe the court’s court's calendaring calendaring of ofits its various various and and numerous numerous unrelated unrelatedmatters, matters, aaNovember November 20, 20, 2023 2023 I
rescheduling rescheduling was was set. set. See See Order Orderdated dated October October24, 24, 2023. 2023.
i। I ! On Onthat thatdate date(November (November20, 20, 2023), 2023),the therelisted relistedcontinuation continuationof ofthe thePCRA PCRAevidentiary evidentiaryhearing hearin ; · । 1
took tookplace placeand andconcluded. concluded. See SeeN.T. N.T. 11/20/23, 11/20/23,pp. pp. 1-63. 1-63. Upon Uponcompletion completionof ofthe theevidentiary evidentiary hearing hearin j
and and admission admission of of exhibits, exhibits, the the court court coordinated coordinated aa briefing briefing schedule schedule with with the the parties’ parties' counsel. counsel. Sec Se j
N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, 11/20/23, pp. pp. 59-62. 59-62. After After unopposed unopposed extension extension requests requests from from both both sides, sides, the the defense defense and an i
prosecution prosecution each eachfiled filed their theirpost-hearing post-hearingresponses. responses. See See Petitioner’s Petitioner's Memorandum Memorandum of ofLaw Law docketec dockete I!
March March 6, 6, 2024, 2024, and and Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Response Response to to Petitioner’s Petitioner's Post-Hearing Post-Hearing Memorandum Memorandum of ofLav La
docketed docketed on on May May 1,1, 2024. 2024.
This This court court following following its its scrutinizing scrutinizing of of the the PCRA PCRA hearing hearing record, record, including including the the admitted admitte ।
exhibits, exhibits, and and considering considering the the respective respective arguments arguments of ofthe the defenses defenses and and Commonwealth, Commonwealth, as as well well asj
final review aa final review of of the the relevant relevant direct direct and and collateral case histories, collateral case histories, by by an an order order of of June June 28, 28, 2024, 2024,। . . dismissed dismissed Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' counseled, counseled, amended amended petition. petition. See See Order Order dated dated June June 28, 28, 2024; 2024; ani an# Defendant’s Defendant's Amended Amended Petition Petition docketed docketed August August 26, 26, 2022. 2022. See See also~Sm. also N.T. 2/24/23; 2/24/23; N.T. N.T. 11/20/22 11/20/23;l . Petitioner’s Petitioner's Memorandum Memorandum of of Law Law docketed docketed March March 6, 6, 2024, 2024, and and Commonwealth’s Commonwealths Response Response ta!
Petitioner’s Petitioner's Post-Hearing Memorandum Memorandum of Law Law docketed docketed on May May 1, 1, 2024. 2024. !
I HL III. Discussion I
Before reaching reaching the supposed supposed merits of the Defendant’s Defendant's collateral claim, the timelinessofi collateral claim, of
Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' current current PCRA PCRA petition petition given given the the above-recounted above-recounted and and approximate approximate twenty twen I i
88 I I (20) (20) year case record year case record was was aa requisite, requisite, threshold threshold inquiry inquiry to to determine determine if if the the courts courts enjoyed enjoyed to to/'
adjudicate adjudicate any any such such contentions contentions necessaiy necessary jurisdiction. jurisdiction. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Miller, Miller, 102 102 A.3d A.3d
988, 992 988, 992 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2014). 2014).
A defendant A defendant must must file file aa PCRA PCRA petition petition within one (1) within one (1) year year from from the the date date the the judgment judgment of o
sentence sentence becomes becomes final. final. 42 Pa.C.S. 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l). §9545(b)(l), A sentencing A sentencing judgment judgment becomes for ! final for becomes fmal
purposes of the purposes of the Post Post Conviction Relief Act Conviction Relief Act “" . ..•... at at the the conclusion conclusion of of direct direct review, review, including including
discretionary review discretionary review in in the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of of the the United United States States and and the the Supreme Court of Supreme Court o
Pennsylvania, or Pennsylvania, or at at the the expiration expiration of of time time for seeking the for seeking the review.” review." 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3). 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3). “The "The ! timeliness of timeliness of aa PCRA PCRA petition petition is is jurisdictional. jurisdictional. If aa PCRA PCRA petition petition is is untimely, untimely, aa court lacks court lacks]
jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. jurisdiction." Commonwealth v. Reeves, Reeves, 296 296 A.3d A.3d 1228, 1228, 1230-31 1230-31 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2023). 2023). See See also also I
Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Pew, Pew, 189 189 A.3d A.3d 486, 486, 488 488 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2O18)(“A11 2018)" AII PCRA PCRA petitions must be petitions must be filed file
within one year within one year of of the the date date upon upon which the judgment which the judgment of sentence became of sentence unless one final, unless became final, one of of th the
statutory exceptions statutory exceptions set set forth forth in in 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i-iii) $9545(b)(1)i-iii) applies.”); applies."); Commonwealth »l! Commonwealth v. i Kretchmar, 189 Kretchmar, 189 A.3d A.3d 459, 459, 462 462 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2018) 2018) quoting quoting 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i)-(iii): §9545(b)(l)(i)-(iii)
Commonwealth v. Staton, Commonwealth v. Staton, 184 184 A.3d A.3d 949, 949, 954 954 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2018) 2018) quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Cox, Cox, 636 63 ' Pa. 603, Pa. 603, 613, 613, 146 146 A.3d221,227 A.3d 221, (2016); (2016); Commonwealth Commonwealth v. • Johnson, Johnson, 945 945 A.2d A.2d 185, 185, 188 188 (Pa.Super (Pa.Super], I
2008); Commonwealth 2008); Commonwealth v. v. Davis, Davis, 916 916 A.2d A.2d 1206, 1206, 1208-09 1208-09 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2007); 2007); and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v v jj
Jackson, 30 A.3d Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 516, 518-19 518-19 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2011) 42 Pa.C.S. 2011) quoting 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b). $9545(b). ।
Thus, for Thus, for the the courts courts to to have have the the requisite requisite jurisdiction jurisdiction to to adjudicate adjudicate any any such such collatenlj collater
contentions, aa defendant contentions, defendant must must file file aa PCRA PCRA pleading, pleading, including including aa second second or subsequent one( or subsequent one(s), s), withi wi · n.
one one (1) (1) year year from from the the date date judgment of sentence judgment of sentence becomes becomes final. final. 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l). §9545(b)(l). Th T ^
otherwise mandated one otherwise mandated one (1) (1) year year filing filing date is excused date is excused only only if if aa defendant defendant alleges alleges and and proves proves one one c 4
the statutory exceptions the statutory exceptions as as set set forth forth in subsections (i), in subsections (i) and/or (), (ii) and/or (iii) of the (iii) of the act's act’s section section 9545,' 954.,
99 relating to to government government interference, interference, newly newly discovered discovered evidence, evidence, or or aa constitutional constitutional right right recognizee recognize 11
by by the the federal federal and/or and/or state supreme courts state supreme courts that that is is applied applied retroactively. retroactively. 42 42 Pa.C.S,! Pa.C.S]' ! §9545(b)(l)(i)(ii)(iii). §9545(b )(l)(i)(ii)(iii). See See also also Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Pew Pew supra supra 1 189 A.3d A.3d at at 488 488 (“All (AII PCRA PCRA petition: petition i;'
must must be be filed filed within within one one year year of of the the date date upon upon which which the the judgment judgment of of sentence sentence became became final, final !' I i
unless unless one one of of the the statutory statutory exceptions exceptions set set forth forth in in 42 42 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §9545(b)(l)(i-iii) $9545b)1)i-ii) applies.”); applies."); | ;
Commonwealth v.• Kretchmar Commonwealth Kretchmar supra supra 189 189 A.3d A.3d atat 462 quoting 42 462 quoting 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i-iii);| $9545(b)(1i-iii); ]
Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Staton, Staton, 184 184 A.3d A.3d 949, 949, 954 954 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2018) 2018) quoting quotingCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Coxsupra\ Cox supr I
636 636 Pa. Pa. at at613, 613, 146 146 A.3d A.3d at at227; 227; Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Johnson Johnsonsupra supra 945 945 A.2d A.2d at at 188; Commonwealth 188; Commonwealt ii
v.v. Davis Davis supra supra 916 916 A.2d A.2d atat 1208-09; 1208-09; and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Jackson Jackson supra supra 30 30 A.3d A.3d at at 51 518-19 j
quoting quoting42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b). $9545(b). ! i
Even Evenshould shouldone one(1) (1) or ormore moreof ofthese thesestatutorily statutorily enumerated enumeratedexemptions exemptionsto tothe theone one (1) (1) yea ye r|
lodging lodgingrequisite requisiteattach, attach,aadefendant defendantfor forpurposes purposesof ofthe thecourt’s court'snecessary necessaryjurisdiction jurisdictionmust mustfile fileany! any'
such suchcollateral collateralpleading pleading“" ...... within withinone oneyear yearof ofthe thedate datethe theclaim claim could couldhave havebeen presented." 44ll beenpresented.”
Pa.C.S. Pa.C.$. §9545(b)(2). 89545(0)(2). I I . '
“[The "[ThePennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court Courthas] has] repeatedly repeatedly stated stated itit isisthe the appellant’s burden tatb] appellant's burden
allege allegeand andprove provethat thatone oneof ofthe thetimeliness timelinessexceptions exceptionsapplies. applies. Whether Whether[the [theappellant] appellant]has hascarried carrie ll
his hisburden burdenisisaathreshold thresholdinquiry inquiryprior priortotoconsidering considering the themerits meritsof ofany anyclaim.” claim." Commonwealth Commonwealth ■>. .1
Edmiston, Edmiston,65 65A.3d A.3d339, 339,346 346(Pa. (Pa.2013)(citation 2013)citationomitted), omitted),cert, cert. denied, denied,Edmiston Edmistno v.• Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanid, l 571 571U.S. U.S. 1026, 1026, 134 134S.Ct. S.Ct..639 639(2013). “ ...... [I]t (2013)." f!ftisisthe thepetitioner petitioner who whobears bearsthe theburden burdentotoallege^ alle /
and andprove provethat thatone oneof ofthe thetimeliness timelinessexceptions exceptionsapplies.” applies." Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.Reid, Reid,235 235A.3d A.3d1124; 1124, I 1158 1158(Pa. (Pa.2020)(Emphasis 2020)Emphasisadded); added);Commonwealth Commonwealthv.•Natividad, Natividad, 596 596Pa. Pa.587, 587,596, 596,947 947A.2d A.2d714; 71+}
719 719(2008)(citation (2008)citationomitted); Commonwealthv.».Pew omitted);Commonwealth Pewsupra supra189 189A.3d A.3datat488 488citing citingCommonwealth Commonweallh
v.v.Taylor, Taylor,6565A.3d A.3d462, 462,468 468(Pa.Super. (Pa.Super.2013)(Emphasis 2013)Emphasisadded)(“77ze added)("Thepetitioner petitionerbears bearsthe theburden burdn
10 10 ! of ofpleading pleading and and proving proving an an applicable applicable statutory statutory exception. exception. If If the the petition petition is is untimely untimely and and th< th r (
petitioner petitioner has has not notpled pledand andproven proven an an exception, exception, the thepetition petition must mustbe be dismissed dismissed without without aa hearing hearin f I
because because Pennsylvania Pennsylvania courts courts are are without without the thejurisdiction jurisdiction to to consider consider the the merits merits of ofthe the petition ”y, ' petition."k' I
and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Towles, Towles, 300 300 A.3d A.3d 402, 402, 415 415 (Pa. (Pa. 2023) 2023) citing citing and and quoting Commonwealth k .'! quoting Commonwealth
Abu-Jamal, Abu-Jamal, 941 941 A.2d A.2d 1263, 1263, 1268 1268 (Pa. (Pa. 2008), cert denied, 2008), cert denied, 555 555 U.S. U.S. 916, 916, 129 129 S.C. S.C. 271 271 (2008 (2008 )| i I and and 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i-ni) §9545(b)(l)(i-iii) and and (2). (2). |I
The The Superior Superior Court Court has has many many times times over over held held second second or or subsequent subsequent PCRA PCRApetitions petitions untimel untimel r ‘
when when such such collateral collateral pleadings pleadings were were not not filed filed within within one one (1) (1) year year after after aa defendant’s defendant's judgment judgment oo 1 I sentence sentence became became final. fmal. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Smallwood, Smallwood, 155 155 A.3d A.3d 1054, 1054, 1059 1059 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2017)i 2017 !
citing 42 citing 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(2) $9545(b)1)2) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Alcorn, Alcorn, 703 703 A.2d A.2d 1054, 1054, 1056-57 1056-57l
(Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1997); 1997); Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v». Furgess, Furgess, 149 149 A.3d A.3d 90, 90, 92 92 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2016) 2016) citing citing 42 42 Pa.C.S.j Pa.C .. j
§9545(b).). Commonwealth §9545(b Commonwealth v.v. Johnson, Johnson, 945 945 A.2d A.2d 185,1 185, 188 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2008); 2008); and and Commonwealth Commonwealth i 1.. j I Davis,916 Davis,916A.2d 1206, 1206, 1208-09 1208-09 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2007). 2007). Moreover, Moreover, aa second second or or additional additional PCRA PCRA pleading pleadin s|j
will will only only be be considered considered if if aa defendant defendant demonstrates demonstrates that that the the proceedings proceedings resulting resulting in in his his convictio convictio ijj I
were were so so unfair unfair that that aa miscarriage miscarriage of of justice justice occurred occurred which which no no civilized civilized society society can can tolerate, tolerate, or or a· . I defendant defendant is is innocent innocent ofthe convicted crimes. Commonwealth oftheconvictedcrimes. Commonwealth v. v. Lawson, Lawson, 519 519 Pa. Pa. 504,513-14, 504, 513-14, 54 54 9i1
A.2d A.2d 107, 107, 112 112 (1988) (1988) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Szuchon, 534 v. Szuchon, 534 Pa. Pa. 483, 483, 487, 487, 633 633 A.2d A.2d 1098, 1098, 1100*! 110
(1993). (1993). See See also also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Hawkins, Hawkins, 598 598 Pa. Pa. 85, 91, 953 85,91, 953 A.2d A.2d 1248, 1248, 125 12511 (2006)(“A (2006)("A second) seco /
or or subsequent subsequent request request for for relief reliefunder under the the PCRA PCRA will will not not be be entertained entertained unless unless the petitionerpresen J8' the petitioner
aa strong strong prima prima facie facie showing showing that that aa miscarriage miscarriage of of justice justice may may have have occurred.”) occurred.") citing citi
Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Carpenter, Carpenter, 555 555 Pa. Pa. 434, 447, 725 A.2d 434,447,725 A.2d 154, 154, 160 160 (1999); (1999); and and Commonwealth Commonwealth >.|
Williams, 442 Williams, 442 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 590, 590, 599, 599, 660 660 A.2d A.2d 614, 618 (1995)(“ 614, 618 (1995)(" ... ... [I]n [I]n aa second second or or subsequent subsequent po po}t
conviction conviction proceeding, proceeding, all all issues issues are are waived waived except except those those which which implicate implicate aa defendant’s defendant's innocent innocendee I
11 11 or which raise the possibility that that the proceedings proceedings resulting in conviction were were so unfair unfair that that u; I miscarriage ofjustice which no no civilized civilized society can tolerate occurred.”)- occurred.").
I On On April April 9, 9, 2001, 2001, Defendant Defendant Saunders Saunders was was sentenced. sentenced. See See Certificate of of Imposition Imposition o' o
Judgment Judgment of Sentence Sentence dated April April 9, 9, 2001. 2001. The The Superior Superior Court Court via its its opinion opinion dated dated August August 27, 2
2002, 2002, affirmed affirmed on on direct direct appeal appeal his his conviction. conviction. See See Superior Superior Court Court No. No. 245 EDA 2001 245 EDA 2001 --- Opinion Opinio ;
dated August August 27, 27, 2002, 2002, 809 809A.2d A.2d 964 964 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2002)(Table). 2002)(Table). The The Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofPennsylvania Pennsylvani
on on December December 2, 2, 2003, 2003, denied denied allocatur allocatur as as to to the the Defendant’s Defendant's direct direct appeal’s appeal's affirmance. affirmance. See See 73! 73 :
MAL MAL 2002, 2002, 576 576 Pa. Pa. 712, 712, 839 839 A.2d A.2d 352 352 (2003)(Table). (2003)(Table). From From the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofPennsylvania’ Pennsylvania' > j
denying denyinghis hisdirect direct appeal’s appeal'sallowance allowancepetition. petition,Defendant Defendant Saunders Saundersdid didnot notseek seekwith withthe theUnited United State State s ■
Supreme Supreme Court Court aa writ writ of ofcertiorari. certiorari. Hence, Hence, after after recognizing recognizing the the ninety ninety (90) (90) day day period period for for filing filing a;
certiorari certiorari writ writ with withthe the Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofthe the United United States, States, the the Defendant’s Defendant's sentencing judgment sentencingjudgme
atatbar barbecame becamefinal final on onMarch March 1,1, 2004. 2004. See SeeCertificate Certificateof ofImposition Impositionof ofJudgment Judgmentof ofSentence Sentencedated date ,
April April 9,9, 2001; 2001; Superior Superior Court CourtNo. No. 245 245 EDA EDA2001 2001 supra,- supra; and andPennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court CourtNo. No. 73 73 ! • I
MAL MAL 2002 2002 supra. supra. See See also also U.S.Sup.Ct.R. U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 13.1; 13.1; 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(3); $9545(b)(3); Pennsylvania Superio I Pennsylvania Superior! ! Court CourtNo. No. 1476 1476EDA EDA2013 2013 —--Opinion Opinionfiled filedApril April2,2,2014; 2014;and and Commonwealth Commonwealthv.». Saunders, Saunders, 102 102 A.3di A.3 I 519 519 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2014)(Table), 2014)Table), 2014 2014 WL WL 10965060 10965060 (text)(“... (text)"... [Petitioner’s] [Petitioner's] judgment judgment of ofsentence' sentencf J
became became final final on on March March 1,1, 2004, 2004, ninety ninety days days after after our our Supreme Supreme Court Court denied denied review, review, and and ...| ...
[Petitioner] [Petitioner]had haduntil untilMarch March 1,1,2005, 2005,totopresent presentaatimely timelyPCRA PCRApetition.”) petition.")
Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' most most current current serial serialpro pro se se filing filing ininthe the above-captioned above-captioned matter matterwas w
lodged lodgedininApril April2021, 2021, more morethan thanseventeen seventeen(17) 17)years years after afterhis his sentencing sentencingjudgement judgementbecame becamefcr fqd ]
Post PostConviction ConvictionRelief ReliefAct Actpurposes purposesfinal. 13 See final." SeePetition Petitiondated datedApril April5,5,2021, 2021,and anddocketed docketedon onApr Apr1 1/ I
23, 23,2021. 2021. See Seealso also42 42Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S.§9545(b)(l)(3). §9545(b)(l)(3).
12 12 £ The statutory time The statutory time bar bar set set forth forth in the Post in the Post Conviction Conviction Relief Relief Act’s Act's section section 9545 9545 is is mandator mandato ' j
as as well as jurisdictional well as in nature jurisdictional in nature and and may may not not thus thus be be altered altered or or disregarded disregarded to to reach reach the the merits merits oo f
claims claims raised raised in in belated belated collateral collateral filings. filings. Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Taylor, 933 A.2d, Taylor, 933 A.2d. 1035, 1035, 1033: 103
(Pa.Super. 2007) (Pa.Super. 2007) citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Murray, 562 v. Murray, 562 Pa. 1, 4, Pa. 1, 4, 753 753 A.2d A.2d 201, 201, 203 203 (2000). (2000). These) Thes
jurisdictional requisites jurisdictional requisites of of the the act act must must accordingly accordingly be be strictly strictly construed. construed. Commonwealth i. Commonwealth I Garcia, 23 A.3d Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059, 1059, 1061 1061 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2011), 2011), appeal appeal denied, denied, 38 38 A.3d A.3d 823 823 (Pa. (Pa. 2012); 2012); anJ an' Commonwealth v. Commonwealth ». Towles Towles supra supra 300 300 A.3d A.3d at at 414-15 414-15 quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal supra v. Abu-Jamal supra 94 94 1 1i
A.2d at 1267-68. A.2d at 1267-68. Courts Courts simply simply cannot cannot adjudicate adjudicate those those issues issues raised raised in in an an untimely untimely PCRA PCRA petitior petition.. iI Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Brown, Brown, 596 596 Pa. Pa. 354, 354, 359, 359, 943 943 A.2d A.2d 264, 264, 267 267 (2008) (2008) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth i..';
Crews, 581 Pa. Crews,581 Pa. 45, 45, 50, 50, 863 863 A.2d A.2d 498, 498, 501 (2004). See 501 (2004). See also also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Mitchell, Mitchell, 141 141 A.3 1277, 1284 1277, 1284 (Pa. (Pa. 2016) 2016) quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Taylor, 620 v. Taylor, 620 Pa. Pa. 429, 429, 434, 434, 67 67 A.3d 1245, 1243 A.3d 1245, 124 ) (2013)( ‘The (2013)(“ 'Te court court cannot cannot ignore ignore aa petition's petition’s untimeliness untimeliness and and reach the merits reach the merits of of the the petition.’ petition.'"”); I Commonwealth v. Whitehawk, Commonwealth v. 146 A.3d Whitehawk, 146 A.3d 266, 266, 269-71 269-71 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2016); 2016); Commonwealth Commonwealth v.. j i Lewis, 63 Lewis, 63 A.3d A.3d 1274, 1274, 1280-81 1280-81 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2013) 2013) quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth n. v. Chester, Chester, 586-Pa. 586.Pa. 46£ 46 ,, I I 471, 895 471, 895 A.2d A.2d 520, 520, 522 522 (2006)(“The PCRA’s time (2006)(The PCRA's time restrictions restrictions are are jurisdictional jurisdictional in in nature. nature. Thus, Thus, if if i PCRA petition is PCRA petition is untimely, untimely, neither neither this this Court nor the Court nor [PCRA] court the [PCRA] court has has jurisdiction jurisdiction over over the the petitior petitio .j. j Without jurisdiction, Without jurisdiction, we we simply simply do do not not have have the the legal legal authority authority to to address address the the substantive substantive claims.”; claims."]; I I Commonwealth v. Beasley, Commonwealth v. 559 Pa. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604, 604, 609, 609, 741 741 A.2d A.2d 1258, 1258, 1261 (1999); and 1261 (1999); and Commonwealth Commonwealth v.'.: Bennett, 593 Bennett, 593 Pa. Pa. 382, 382, 388, 388, 930 930 A.2d A.2d 1264, 1264, 1267 1267 (2007)(“[J]urisdictional (2007)("[J]urisdictional time time limits limits go go to to aa court’s! courtl l right or right or competency competency to to adjudicate adjudicate aa controversy.”). controversy."). As per As per such such aa prior prior order order and and understanding of the understanding of the parties, parties, the the subject matter of subject matter of the;le evidentiary hearings was evidentiary hearings limited to was limited to addressing addressing whether whether Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' met met the the threshold threshol I - pleading and pleading and proof proof requirements requirements under under 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i) $9545(b)1)) and/or and/or (ii) (ii) of of the the PCRA PCRA necessary! necess 13 13 to accord the courts jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the collateral pleading's purported merits to accord the courts jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the collateral pleading’s purported merits See Hearing Notice dated January 5, 2023; and Order October 24, 2023. See also N.T. 2/24/23; an See Hearing Notice dated January 5, 2023; and Order October 24, 2023. See also N.T. 2/24/23; ant N.T. N.T. 11/20/23. 11/20/23. On February 24, 2023, and November 20, 2023, the court held the PCRA evidenti On February 24, 2023, and November 20, 2023, the court held the PCRA evidentiary hearings limited to the defense attempting to establish an exception to the time bar relating to th hearings limited to the defense attempting to establish an exception to the time bar relating to the court's jurisdiction necessary to reach the alleged merits of the Defendant's collateral allegations 1 court’s jurisdiction necessary to reach the alleged merits of the Defendant’s collateral allegations See N.T. 2/24/23, p. 3; and N.T. 11/20/23, pp. 3, 58-61. See also Hearing Notice dated January 5 See N.T. 2/24/23, p. 3; and N.T. 11/20/23, pp. 3, 58-61. See also Hearing Notice dated January 5 I 2023;and 2023; andOrder OrderOctober October24, 24,2023. 2023. See Seegenerally Pa.R.Crim.P.907(3). generallyPa.R.Crim.P. 907(3). I PCRA counsel presented a purported police report reflecting a supposed statement from PCRA counsel presented a purported police report reflecting a supposed statement from i. ' previously unknown witness in the case that was exculpatory and allegedly had never been share previously unknown witness in the case that was exculpatory and allegedly had never been shared - with the defense. See N.T. 2/24/23, pp. 12, 90; Defense Exhibit D-PCRA-6 -- Statement; N. with the defense. See N.T. 2/24/23, pp. 12, 90; Defense Exhibit D-PCRA-6 - Statement; N.T. 11/20/23, pp. 57-58; and Defense Exhibits D-PCRA-7-18. See also Defendant's Amended PC 11/20/23, pp. 57-58; and Defense Exhibits D-PCRA-7-18. See also Defendant’s Amended PCRA : Petition docketed August 26, 2022. Defendant Saunders was endeavoring to demonstrate a tim Petition docketed August 26, 2022. Defendant Saunders was endeavoring to demonstrate a time | bar exemption under either the governmental interference and/or the so called after discovere bar exemption under either the governmental interference and/or the so called after discovered evidence exception. See 42 Pa.C.S. 69545(b)1))(). Cf 42 Pa.C.S.$9543(a)2)vi). See als evidence exception. See 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i)(ii). Cf. 42 Pa.C.S.§9543(a)(2)(vi). See also Commonwealth • Bennett supra 593 Pa. at 393-96, 930 A.2d at 1270-72 (Distinguishing betwee Commonwealth v. Bennett supra 593 Pa. at 393-96, 930 A.2d at 1270-72 (Distinguishing between after-discovered evidence time bar provisions and alleged Brady violations.); and Brady after-discovered evidence time bar provisions and alleged Brady violations.); and Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct 194, 10 L.Ed 2d 215 (1963). A PCRAmerits analysis is distint Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 194, 10 L.Ed 2d 215 (1963). A PCRA merits analysis is distinct from from a timeliness a timeliness analysis, analysis, butbut with with Brady Brady issues issues thethe twotwo (2)(2) cancan bleed bleed over. over. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds that a Brady violation will not be found where The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds that a Brady violation will not be found where a defendant could have uncovered the supposedly undisclosed evidence with reasonable diligen defendant could have uncovered the supposedly undisclosed evidence with reasonable diligence - See Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715, 726, Fn. 8 (Pa. 2023) citing Commonwealth See Commonwealth v. Conforti, 303 A.3d 715, 726, Fn. 8 (Pa. 2023) citing Commonwealth J 14 14 Bagnell, Bagnell, 235 A.3d 1075, 1075, 1091(Pa. 1091(Pa. 2020); 2020); Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Morris, Morris, 822 A.2d 684, 684, 696 (Pa. (Pa. 2003j 2003]; Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Carson, Carson, 914 A.2d 220, 220, 245 245 (Pa. 2006); Hall (Pa. 2006); ». Pa. Hall v. Pa. Bd. Bd. of ofProbation and Parolt Parole,, 578 Pa. Pa. 245, 254-55, 851 245, 254-55, 851 A.2d A.2d 859, 859, 865 (2004); (2004); and and Dennis Dennis v. ». Pa. Pa. Depart, Depart. ofCorrections, Corrections, 834 F.3 F.3 1 263, 263, 290 290 (3d Cir. Cir. 2016)(While 2016)(While the the Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court Court is is clearly clearly bound bound by by the the holdings holdings of the the United United States States Supreme Supreme Court Court in in construing construing federal federal constitutional constitutional principles principles and and law, law, itit is is not not·it such such cases cases constrained constrained by by the the holdings holdings of of the the Third Circuit Court Third Circuit Court of of Appeals.). Any reliance Appeals.). Any reliance o:o i Dennis Dennis v.v. Pa. Pa. Dept, Dept. of ofCorrections Corrections supra supra 834 834 F.3d F.3d 263, 263, 290 290 (2010) (2010) to to argue argue that that there there isis no no dus du diligence diligence requisite requisite for for asserting asserting aa Brady Brady claim claim isis simply simply not not in fa accord accord with with Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law law a s promulgated promulgated by by the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court. Court. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Conforti Conforti supra supra 303 303 A.3 A.3 1 at at 726, 726, Fn. Fn. 88 citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Bagnell Bagnell supra supra 235 235 A.3d A.3d at at 1091; 1091; Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Morri? Morri supra supra 822 822 A.2d A.2d atat 696; 696; Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Carson Carson supra supra 914 914 A.2d A.2d atat 245; 245; Hall Hall v.». Pa. Pa. Bd. Bd. cf Probation Probation and and Parole Parole supra supra 578578 Pa. Pa. atat254-55, 254-55, 851 851 A.2d A.2dat at 865; 865; and and Dennis Dennis v.• Pa. Pa. Depart, Depart. of „ I Corrections Correctionssupra supra 834 834 F.3d F.3d atat290. 290. | I I As Asrecently recently opined opinedby bythe theSupreme Supreme Court Courtof ofPennsylvania: Pennsylvania: “The ·Thelaw lawgoverning governingBrady Bradyisiswell-settled: well-settled: In InBrady, Brady,the theUnited UnitedStates StatesSupreme SupremeCourt Courtheld heldthat that the the suppression suppression by by thethe prosecution prosecution of of evidence evidence favorable favorable toto anan accused accused upon upon request request violates violates due due process where the evidence is material either to guilt process where the evidence is material either to guilt or or toto punishment, punishment, irrespective irrespective of ofthe the good good faith faith or or bad bad faith faith of ofthe the prosecution. prosecution. The The Supreme Supreme Court Court subsequently held that the duty to disclose such subsequently held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even if there has been no evidence is applicable even if there has been no request by the accused, and that the duty request by the accused, and that the duty may may encompass encompass impeachment impeachment evidence evidence asas wellwell asas directly directly exculpatory exculpatory evidence. evidence. Furthermore, Furthermore, the the prosecution’s prosecutions Brady Brady obligation obligation extends extends toto exculpatory evidence in exculpatory evidence in the files of police agencies the files of police agencies of the same government bringing of the same government bringingthe prosecution. the prosecution. 1515 Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Lambert, Lambert, 584 Pa.Pa. 461, 461, 884 A.2d 848, 848, 853-54 (2005)(intemal (2005)internal citations and quotations quotations omitted). omitted). The The prosecution’s prosecution's duty duty under under Brady Brady is limited as “the"the Constitution is not not violated every time the the government government fails or or chooses chooses not not to disclose evidence evidence that that might might prove prove helpful helpful to to the the defense.” defense." Kyles, Kyles, 514 514 U.S. U.S. at at 436-37, 436-37, 115115 S.Ct. S.Ct. 1555 (citing US. v.». Bagley, (citing U.S. Bagley, 473473 U.S. U.S. 667, 667, 675 and n.7, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). “Thus, and n.7, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). "Thus, there there are are three three necessary necessary components components thatthat demonstrate demonstrate aa violation violation of the the Brady Brady strictures: strictures: the the evidence evidence was was favorable favorable to to the the accused, accused, either either because because itit isis exculpatory exculpatory or or because because itit impeaches; impeaches; the the evidence evidence waswas suppressed suppressed by by the the prosecution, prosecution, either either willfully willfully or or inadvertently; and prejudice ensued.” Lambert, 884 A.2d at 854 inadvertently; and prejudice ensued." Lambert, 884 A.2d at 854 (quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.». Burke, Burke, 566 566 Pa. Pa. 402, 402, 781 781 A.2d A.2d 1136, 1136, 1141 1141 (Pa. (Pa. 2001) 2001) Commonwealth Commonwealthv.». Conforti Conforti supra supra 303 303 A.3d A.3d at at 725. 725. Both Both parties parties ably ably argued argued their their respective respective positions positions regarding regarding the the requirement requirement of of “duo "du diligence” or the diligence or the lack lack thereof thereofas as ititpertained pertainedto to establishing establishing each eachof therelevant ofthe relevanttime time bar barexception; exception litigated litigated before before this this court. court. See See Petitioner’s Petitioner's Memorandum Memorandum of ofLaw Law docketed docketed March March 6,6, 2024, 2024, pp. pp. 12- 12 26; 26; and and Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Response Response docketed docketedMay May 1,1, 2024, 2024, pp. pp. 6-10. 6-10. However, However, given giventhis this court’;; court' findings findingsof offact factand andrelated relatedcredibility credibilitydeterminations, determinations,ititdid didnot notdeem deemititnecessary necessarytotosail sailthose thoseturbid turbi waters watersbecause becauseititfound foundthat thatthe theputative putativepolice policereport reportatatissue, issue,D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6---Statement Statement(also (alsoattachec attache L to to Exhibits Exhibits D-PCRA-5 D-PCRA-5 and and D-PCRA-5A D-PCRA-5A and andD-PCRA-7-18 D-PCRA-7-18 (same)), (same)), isis not not and and never never was was in inthe th possession possession of of the the Chester Chester City City Police Police Department, Department, the the Delaware Delaware County County District District Attorney’:; Attorney' Criminal CriminalInvestigation InvestigationDivision Division(CID), (CID),and/or and/orin inthe theDelaware DelawareCounty CountyDistrict DistrictAttorney’s Attorney'sfile; file; no no]• was wasititever ever contained containedin inthe theDelaware DelawareCounty CountyOffice Officeof ofJudicial JudicialSupport Support(hereinafter (hereinafter“OJS”) "OJS")official offici criminal c urtrecord criminalcourt recordfile filefor forthe theabove-captioned above-captionedcase, case,Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.Saunders, Saunders,No. No.1537-2000. 1537-200 In In concluding concludingthat thatthe thepolice policereport reportatat issue issue (D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) isisthe theproduct product of ofaafraud fraudand and u forgery, forgery,the thecourt courtdraws drawsupon uponits itsnearly nearlytwenty-four twenty-four(24) (24)years yearson onthe thebench benchasasaatrial trialcourt courtjudge judg with withthe themajority majorityof ofsuch suchtime timebeing beingassigned assignedtotothe thecriminal criminalsection. section. See SeeDefense DefenseExhibit ExhibitD-PCRA D-PCRA■ 16 16 6. 6. Just Just as as jurors jurors must must use use their their commonsense, commonsense, this this jurist jurist is is not not aa tabula rasa and and certain certain logic logic inferences inferences at at bar bar are most most compelling. compelling. For For aa number number of of reasons, reasons, this this court court did did not not find find La’Var La'Var (a/k/a (a/kla Levar) Levar) Harley’s Harley's testimony testimon presented presented at at the the PCRA PCRA evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing to to be be credible. credible. See See N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 18-54. 18-54. Not N believing believing his his testimony testimony necessitates necessitates dismissal dismissal of ofthe the PCRA PCRApetition petition for for relief reliefdue due to to lack lack of of judicu judioi 1 jurisdiction. jurisdiction. The The only only thing thing that that gives gives this this court court modest modest pause pause in in making making this this determination determination is because because of ofcounsel counsel for for the the Defendant, Defendant, Attorney Attorney Wismer’s Wismer's outstanding outstanding lawyering lawyering and and firm firm grasp grasp cfj the the intricacies intricacies and and nuances nuances of ofPCRA PCRA caselaw, caselaw, and and whose whose written writtenand and oral oral advocacy advocacy leaves leaves no sto 1 no stons unturned. unturned. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, this this court’s court's classic classic function function as as the the finder finder of ofthe thefact fact and and its its reliance reliance only only ooi the the credible credible evidence evidence mandates mandates the the Defendant’s Defendant's amended amended PCRA PCRA petition’s petitions dismissal. dismissal. Sei Defendant’s Defendant'sAmended AmendedPCRA PCRAPetition Petitiondocketed docketedAugust August26, 26,2022. 2022. In In his his testimony, testimony, Mr. Mr. Harley Harley wanted wanted the the court court to to believe believe that that he he knew knew little little about about th 3 Defendant s criminal Defendant's criminal case case other otherthan thanthat thatDefendant Defendant Saunders Saunders always alwaysprofessed professedhis his innocence innocence 1 t) 6 himwhen him whenthey theywould wouldtalk talkwhile whilethey theyininstate stateprison prisonserved servedtime timetogether. together. Upon Uponthe thewitness, witness,M\ ·l I Harley, Harley,being beinggranted grantedparole paroleinin2016 2016on onhis hiskidnapping kidnappingand andaggravated aggravatedassault assaultconvictions, convictions,the tw i thetwj (2) (2) maintained maintainedongoing ongoing contact contactwith withone oneanother. another. InIn 2021, 2021, Mr. Mr. Harley Harley.offered offeredhis his assistance assistancetot I a] Defendant Defendant Saunders, Saunders, who who after after his his federal federal habeas habeas petition petition was was denied, denied, wanted wanted toto prepare prepare i commutation commutationof ofsentence sentenceapplication. application. Mr. Mr.Harley Harleytestified testifiedthat thathe hewent wentotothe theClerk Clerkof ofCourts CourtsOffic Offic3 of ofDelaware DelawareCounty County(Delaware (DelawareCounty CountyOffice Officeof ofJudicial JudicialSupport) Support)totoreview reviewthe theDefendant’s Defendant'scowt co file fileand andtotocopy copypaperwork paperworkthat thatmay maybe beneeded neededfor forDefendant DefendantSaunders’ Saunders'commutation commutationrequest. request. N.I N. 2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp. 19-25. 19-25. On Onaareturn returntrip, trip,Mr. Mr.Harley Harleyclaimed claimedhe heactually actuallylooked lookedthrough throughthe thefive five(5) (:;) boxes boxesand andan anaccordion accordionfile filethat thatthe thecourt courtclerk clerkprovided, provided,removed removedcertain certainpapers paperstotobebecopied, copied,ths] originals originalswere werecopied copiedand andthen thenretained retainedby bythe theclerk, clerk,and andhe hepaid paidfor forthe thecopies. copies. N.T. N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. p. I 1717 9-25. The 19-25. The receipt receipt for cash payment payment made was for twenty-three ($23.00) dollars an< made for the copies was an 1 dated February 22, 22, 2021 2021. See Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-5 D-PCRA-5 -- Receipt Receipt and and D-PCRA-5A D-PCRA-5A -- Receipt Receipt ( i duplicate of the original original copies.) copies.) On On cross-examination, cross-examination, Mr. Mr. Harley Harley had hadto to either either retract retract or or modify modify certain certain material material statement statementj he he made made during during his his direct direct testimony. testimony. Rather Rather than than helping helping him him out out on on his his criminal criminal case case just just the the on on 3 time, time, Mr. Mr. Harley Harley had had to to correct correct himself himselfwhen when aa 20 2016 state state habeas habeas corpus corpus petition petition was was shown shown to to bin· i which which in in preparing preparing and and filing filing he he assisted assisted the the Defendant. Defendant. N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 36-42. 36-42. He He also also explained explaine how how the the police police report report —-- witness witness statement statement (D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) at at issue issue was was in in aa brown brown envelope, envelope, and and Mi . Harley Harley immediately immediately realized realized the the significance significance of ofitit when when he he read read it. it. N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, p.p. 49. 49. See See also als Defense Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 -- Statement. Statement. Included Includedwithin withinthe the defense defenseExhibit ExhibitD-PCRA-5A D-PCRA-5Apacket packetwas wasthe the alleged allegedproverbial e smoking provrbial smokin j gun, gun,which whichwas was separated separatedout outand andsubsequently subsequentlyadmitted admittedas asdefense defenseExhibit ExhibitD-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6---Statemenl Statement. See See N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 12, 12, 26-30, 26-30, 90. 90. When Whenshown showntoto the theDefendant’s Defendants trial trial counsel, counsel, Karen KarenE. E. Friej, Frie), Esquire, Esquire, she she testified testified that that although although she she no no longer longer had had her her file file on on the the case case more more than than twenty twenty (20) (2 years years later, later, she she did did not not recall recall ever everseeing seeing such suchaa statement. statement. See See Defense DefenseExhibit ExhibitD-PCRA-6. D-PCRA-6. If she she had had possessed possessed it, it, Attorney Attorney Friel Friel believed believed itit could could have have been been utilized utilized to to conduct conduct further furth investigation investigation into into an an alibi alibi defense defenseand andused usedtoto impeach impeach Omar OmarDavis, Davis, aacooperating cooperatingwitness witnessfor forthth3 Commonwealth, Commonwealth, and andco-defendant co-defendantininDefendant DefendantSaunders’ Saunders' case. case. N.T. N. T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp. 11-16. 11-16. When Whenthe theDefendant Defendanttestified, testified,he heexhibited exhibitedaafamiliarity familiaritywith withthe thepost-conviction post-convictioncollaterr 1 collaterjl relief reliefprocess process and andthe the types typesof ofinformation informationthat thatmight mightgamer garnerhim himsuch suchremedy, remedy,including includingbut butnet n t limited limitedtotothe thePCRA’s PCRA'stime timebar barand andits itsfatal fatalconsequences. consequences. N.T. N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp.55-71, 55-71,81-83. 81-83. Whe Whei he hewas was incarcerated incarceratedinin2012 2012 atatthe thesame same state statecorrectional correctionalinstitution institutionasashis his co-defendant, co-defendant, Oms Om r 1818 Davis, Davis, through aa third third party, party, he he managed managed to to obtain obtain an an affidavit affidavit purportedly purportedly from from Mr. Mr. Davis Davis which whi in in essence essenec was was aa recantation recantation of of the the statement statement he he initially initially provided provided to to the the police, police, as as well well as as his his triiil tri testimony. testimony. See See N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 63-66. 63-66. In In aa pro pro se se supplemental supplemental PCRA PCRA petition petition docketed docketed on November November 10,10, 2021, 2021, contrary contrary to to Mr. Mr. Harley’s Harley's testimony, testimony, in in two two (2) (2) separate separate places places in in his his sworn swor � petition, petition, Defendant Defendant Saunders Saunders identifies identifies La’Var La'Var Harley, Harley, his his obviously obviously critical critical witness, witness, asas hs “brother.” See N.T. "brother." See N.T. 2/24/23, pp. 80-81. 2/24/23, pp. See also 80-81. See also Petition Petition docketed November November 10, 10, 2021. 2021. I! ' purportedlyl The The police police report report -- witness witness statement statement (D-PCRA-6), (D-PCRA-6), which which La’Var La'Var Harley Harley purportedly I located located amongst amongstthe the five five (5) (5) file file boxes boxes and andthe the brown brown accordion accordion file file in in OJS, OS, was was allegedly allegedly authored authoreti by byDetective Detective Michael Michael Beverly Beverly and andthe the witness witness interviewed interviewed was was purportedly purportedly an anEric Eric Pettiford. Pettiford. The parties parties agreed agreed that that both both Detective Detective Beverly Beverly and Mr. Pettiford and Mr. Pettiford were were long long since since deceased. deceased. N.T. N .. 2/24/23, 2/24/23,p.p. 44 and andN.T. N.T. 11/20/23, pp. 11/20/23, pp. 7-8. 7-8. See See also also Commonwealth CommonwealthExhibit Exhibit---Eric Bric Pettiford Pettiford Death Dea Certificate Certificate(This (This certificate certificate of ofdeath deathreveals Mr. Pettiford reveals Mr. Pettiforddied died on onJuly July 8,8, 2007, 2007, from from multiple multiple gun g shot shotwounds, wounds, as aswell well as asblunt bluntforce forcehead head injuries, injuries, with withthe themanner mannerof ofdeath death found found by by the themedic; medic il examinatorto exarninator tobe behomicide.). homicide.). When Whenthe thefollow-up follow-upPCRA PCRAevidentiary evidentiaryhearing hearing(which (whichagain againsolely solelydealt dealtwith withjurisdictior .) jurisdiction;) , reconvened on November 20, 2023, Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division (hereafter ,econvoned on Novembe, 20, 2023, Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division (hereaft CID”) Detective "CID") Detective Michael Michael Palmer Palmer testified. testified. The The court court found found Detective Detective Palmer Palmer toto be be entirely entire I credible. credible. See SeeN.T. N.T. 11/20/23, 11/20/23,pp. pp.5-56. 5-56. He Hedid didnot notoverstate overstatethe thecase caseby bysaying saying“this "thiscould couldnever! nevi . I happen.” happen." Rather, Rather,the thedetective detectivedescribed describedwhat whatoccurred occurredon onaaregular regularand androutine routinebasis basiswhen whenhe wsj I hews with withthe the City City of ofChester ChesterPolice Police Department Department and andthen then subsequent subsequent with with CID, CID, regarding regarding police' polide, protocols protocolsand andprocedures procedurespertaining pertainingtotopolice policereports reportsand/or and/orwitness witnessstatement. statement. N.T. N.T.1 1/20/23, p] J 11/20/23, ·ll iI 11-16. Detective Palmer was the lead investigator on this homicide case both in his capacity as a 11-16. Detective Palmer was the lead investigator on this homicide case both in his capacity as a' 1 I i I 1919 Chester Chester City Police detective and when he subsequently went went to the Delaware County Crimin; Crimin 1 Investigation Investigation Division. Division. N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, 1/20/23, pp. pp. 6-7, 6-7, 39-41. 39-41. Despite PCRA counsel’s counsel's best best efforts in attempting to obtain obtain the City of Chester Chester Police Poli ■ Department’ Department's original original file in this homicide investigation and prosecution, prosecution, the Defendant’ Defendant's collaten collate 1 attorney learned that that the paper paper file no no longer longer exists, exists, and it was was not not stored electronically. electronically. See N.T. N. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 90-91; 90-91; and N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, p. 11/20/23, p. 4. 4. 1 However, However, Detective Palmer Palmer had bad copied the entire entire Chester Chester City City Police Police investigation investigation file file anil an i brought brought itit with with him him when when he he assumed assumed employment employment as as aa sworn sworn Criminal Criminal Investigation Investigation Divisio Divisio i member member because he he was was yet yet continuing continuing in that that newer newer role role as as one one of ofthe the primarily primarily involved involved polios polic officers officers and and the the investigation investigation was was still still ongoing. ongoing. N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, pp. 11/20/23, pp. 6-7,39-41,43-44,51-53. 6-7,39-41, 43-44, 51-53. Before Befo this this PCRA PCRA litigation, litigation, Detective Detective Palmer Palmer had had never never seen seen the the police police report report at at issue issue (D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) an i was was completely completely unaware unaware that that Eric Eric Pettiford had had been been supposedly supposedly during during the the police police investigation investigatio been been interviewed. interviewed. See See N.T. N,T. 11/20/23, pp. 11/20/23, pp. 45-47. 45-47. See See also alsoDefense Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6-- Statemen Statement.:. According According to to Detective Detective Palmer, Palmer, itit would would have have been been totally totally out out of of character character for for the the late late Detective Detectiv Beverly Beverly not not to to have have made made such such an an interview interview known known to to him him and/or and/or submitted submitted aa police police report report abox abo tt the the same same to to central central recordkeeping. recordkeeping. N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, p. 11/20/23, p. 50. 50. Despite Despite the the efforts efforts of of both both counsel, counsel, the the original original or or no no other other copy copy of of the the supposed supposed Eric Eri Pettiford Pettiford interview interview with with Detective Detective Beverly Beverly could could be be located. located. See See Defense Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 - Statement. Statement. See See N.T. N.T. 2/24/23; 2/24/23; and andN.T. N.T. 11/20/23. 11/20/23. There There isis no no original original Chester ChesterPolice Police file. file. Copies Copi s of ofthe the entire, entire, original original Chester Chesterpolice policefile filemade madeby by Detective DetectivePalmer Palmerin inthe the year year2000, 2000, did didnot notinclude inclu the thestatement statement(D-PCRA-6), (D-PCRA-6),which whichwas was dated datedprior, prior, October October 18, 1999. 18, 1999. N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, pp. 11/20/23, pp. 47-48, 47-48, 5 - 5.1- 53. 53. See See also also Defense Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 -- Statement. Statement. The The Delaware Delaware County County Judicial Judicial Suppo:t Suppo 1 20 20 I i interview -- statement report interview police report alleged police the alleged obtained the he obtained testified he Var Harley testified La' Var where La’ Office, where Office, statement c jfj I counsel confirmei PCRA counsel statement. PCRA such statement. any such file any its file in its have in not have does not (D-PCRA-6) does Pettiford (D-PCRA-6) Eric Pettiford Eric confinne j careful search own careful his own conducting his by conducting fact by this fact this ofthe search of OJS court the OJS file. See court file. Defense Exhibit See Defense D-PC - Exhibit D-PCRA -I 66-- Statement. Statement. ! I for the reason for rational reason no rational just no there isis just that there scenario isis that the scenario of the part of convincing part most convincing The most The co t was aa cow unless itit was fileunless OJS file the OJS inthe beenin have been to have (D-PCRA-6) to statement (D-PCRA-6) interview statement police interview contestedpolice contested I fromthe OJS from forwarded toto OJS papers forwarded recordpapers courtrecord the court ofthe part of or part trial, or hearing, atat trial, pre-trial hearing, in aapre-trial exhibit in exhibit D-PCRA-6 - Exhibit D-PCRA-6 Defense Exhibit See Defense case. See the case. not the simply not that isis simply and that court and district court magisterial district magisterial such a absentsuch repository, absent reportsaarepositoiy, enforcementreports lawenforcement forlaw beenfor neverbeen hasnever andhas notand OJS isisnot Statement. OJS Statement. been i neverbeen has never andhas notand OS isis not Likewise, OJS proceeding. Likewise, judicial proceeding. during aajudicial admission during documents admission documents recordkeeper record forthe keeperfor filesor Attorney'sfiles DistrictAttorney’s theDistrict CID'sfiles, orCID’s againwithout files,again thesame withoutthe beingatataacow samebeing co t admittedexhibit. anadmitted trialan hearing---trial hearing exhibit. iI On findthat constrainedtotofind juristisisconstrained thisjurist court,this thecourt, beforethe factsbefore thefacts Onthe reportatatissue thereport thatthe issue(D-| }l attem�t-atatperpetrating cleverattempt partofofaaclever PCRA-6)isispart PCRA-6) perpetrat�gon onthe c�inaljustice thecriminal �stemaafraud. justicesystem lig t t1· fraud. InInligl ' of exception,ththy, barexception, timebar PCRAtime provingaaPCRA andproving pleadingand pertainingtotopleading wholepertaining evidenceasasaawhole theevidence ofthe 3 SuperiorCourt’s theSuperior withthe accordancewith lacking. InInaccordance credibilitylacking. whollyinincredibility contentionisiswholly Defendant'scontention Defendant’s Court' statement(D- witnessstatement report---witness policereport thepolice thatthe findingthat supportsa afinding recordsupports therecord review,the standardofofreview, standard ( - ExhibitD- DefenseExhibit alsoDefense Seealso 28. See 24-25,28. pp.24-25, infra,pp. Seeinfra, authentic. See norauthentic. crediblenor neithercredible PCRA-6)isisneither PCRA-6) 1- PCRA-6 - Statement. PCRA-6-- Statement. Thepurported The policereport purportedpolice necessary(D-PCRA-6) statementnecessary - statement report- thedefense (D-PCRA-6)totothe establishinj defenseestablishin JudicialSuppat CountyJudicial DelawareCounty theDelaware foundininthe purportedlyfound waspurportedly jurisdictionwas requisitejurisdiction courtsrequisite thecourts the Suppoity 'i Office theabove-captioned afterthe decadesafter filedecades Officefile directlitigation matter'sdirect above-captionedmatter’s longsince litigationlong sinceconcluded an I concludedani . I 2121 I I while while the the case case had had been been for for aa number number of of years years collaterally collaterally inactive inactive by by aa former former inmate inmate and and “strong "strong!”i I friend of the Defendant, whom Defendant Saunders references a sworn petition as his “brother ”i friend of the Defendant, whom Defendant Saunders references in a sworn petition as his "brother/"l I See also Defense; � N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 19-25, 19-25, 49, 49, 80-81; 80-81; and and Petition Petition docketed docketed November November 10, 10, 2021. 2021. See Defen Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 —-- Statement. Statement. The The salient salient record record is is completely completely devoid devoid of of even even an an implied reas n!: implied reaso why why aa supposed supposed police police report —witness report-- witness statement statement (D-PCRA-6) in an (D-PCRA-6) never neverprevious previous at be held atbar barneither neither marke mark d 1Se nor nor admitted admitted as as aa court court exhibit exhibit would would in an official official judicial judicial file file be held and/or and/or maintained. maintained. St e Defense Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 —- Statement. Statement. Beyond Beyond itit most most reasonably reasonably questioning questioning how how aa past; p st i unmarked unmarkedand/or and/or unadmitted unadmittedpolice policereport witness statement report-witness statementinexplicably inexplicably and andcontrary’s contrary'sto almo st� to almo: this this court’s court's quarter quarter of ofaacentury century of ofjudicial judicial experiences experiencesbecame becamepart partof ofthe theDelaware DelawareCounty CountyJudicial Judicidli ' ? Support Support Office’s Office's file, file, the the fact fact this this purported purported police police report report --- witness witness statement statement (D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) could cou .1 not not again again be be located located in in that thatjudicial judicial file file by by collateral collateral counsel counsel through through his his painstakingly dilige it J painstakingly diligei � x-x efforts to once more retrieve the same additionally calls into question this supposed document’s (E - efforts to once more retrieve the same additionally calls into question this supposed document's ( ! PCRA-6) PCRA-6) legitimacy. legitimacy. See See N.T. N.T. 2/24/23; 2/24/23; and and N.T. N.T. 11/20/23. 11/20/23. See See Defense DefenseExhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 - Statement. Statement. I I Although Althoughas asargued arguedby bythe thedefense defensethis thispolice policereport - witness report- witnessstatement (D-PCRA-6)we statement(D-PCRA-6) w sj I once oncemaintained maintainedin inthe thecourt courtfile, file,albeit albeitwithout withouteven evenaasuggestion suggestionabout abouthow howsuch suchan ananomaly anomalycam c .eel totopass, pass,the thelaw lawenforcement enforcementfile filemaintained maintainedby byone oneof ofthe theoriginal originalinvestigating investigatingdetectives, detectives,aaplac e plade, one onewould wouldreasonably reasonablyexpect expecttotofind findthat thattype typenotable notablepolice policereport report---witness witnessstatement, statement, did didnot nbtt include includeany anysuch suchdocument documentnor norhad hadthat thatdetective detectiveabout aboutthe thesame sameany anyknowledge. knowledge. N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, ,I 11/.20/2 pp. pp.45-52. 45-52. See Seealso alos Defense DefenseExhibit ExhibitD-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6---Statement. Statement. Moreover, Moreover,this thiscourt courtnotes notesthe thesupposed supposedauthor authorof ofthe theatatissue issuepolice policereport report(D-PCRA-6), (D-PCRA-6), I Detective DetectiveMichael MichaelBeverly, Beverly,asaswell wellasasthe theindividual individualthis thisinvestigator investigatorallegedly allegedlyinterviewed, interviewed,Eric! E i •< 1 Pettiford, Pettiford,have haveboth bothbeen beenlong longdeceased deceasedand andtheir theirrespective respectivedeaths deathscommon commonknowledge knowledgeabout abouthe 2222 | Chester Chester City community. community. N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/4/23, 2 p. p. 4; 4; and and N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, p. 11/20/23, p. 7. 7. See also Defense Defense Exhibit )-- Exhibit I PCRA-6 PCRA-6 -- Statement; Statement; and and Commonwealth Commonwealth Exhibit Exhibit C-PCRA-1 C-PCRA-1 - -- Eric Eric Pettiford Pettiford Death Death Exhib t. Exhiblt. Relatedly, Relatedly, the the Defendant Defendant enjoyed at at least least aa passing passing familiarity familiarity with with Eric Eric Pettiford Pettiford and and his his family, family, as well well as as was was grew grew up up with with and and was was close close to to one one of ofMr. Mr. Pettiford’s Pettiford's cousins. cousins. N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 87-8 87-8 3. Finally, Finally, this this court court on on the the instant instant record record was was mindful mindful this this was was not not the the first first time time Defenda Defend it Saunders Saunders in in his his continued continued serialized serialized pursuit pursuit of of at at bar bar collateral collateral litigation litigation enlisted enlisted his his “brother’s ” "brother's!" Mr. Harley’s Mr. Harley's cooperative cooperative assistance. assistance. See See N.T. N.T. 2/24/23, 2/24/23, pp. pp. 19-25, 19-25, 49, 49, 80-81. 80-81. See See also also Petiticn Petition docketed docketed November November 10, 10, 2021; 2021; and and Commonwealth Commonwealth Exhibit Exhibit C-2 C-2 --- Habeas Habeas Petition Petition originally originally docketed docketed civilly civilly May May 23, 23, 2016. 2016. In In May May of of2016, 2016, the the Defendant Defendant as as engineered engineered and and effectuated effectuated ly Mr. Harley Mr. Harley filed filed in inthis this court’s court's civil civil section section aa Petition Petition for for Writ Writ of ofHabeas Habeas Corpus Corpus [sfc] alleging tyjy [sic] alleging I II its itsplain plainand andunambiguous unambiguousterms termsaachallenge challengeto tothe thelawfulness lawfulnessof ofhis hissentence sentencein inthe theabove-captione above-captiondd ! matter, matter, along along with with averments averments atat least least implicitly implicitly recognizing recognizing the the PCRA PCRA time time bar, bar, and and related relat d argument argument about about why why this this filing filing should should have have been been seen seen asas beyond beyond the the PCRA’s PCRA's and and its its fatal fat jurisdictional jurisdictional consequence’s consequence's purview. purview. Commonwealth Commonwealth Exhibit Exhibit C-2 C-2 ---Habeas Habeas Petition Petition originally original docketed docketedcivilly civillyMay May23, 23,2016, 2016,pp. pp.3,3,9-12. 9-12. See Seealso alsoN.T. N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp.35-42, 35-42,59-61. 59-61. Although Althoughth s civil civil lodging lodgingwas wasrightly rightlytransferred transferred toto the the criminal criminal court court subsequent, subsequent, ultimately ultimately found found toto be be anj ' untimely untimelyPCRA PCRApetition petitionand andrelatedly relatedlydismissed, dismissed,this thisprior,joint, prior, joint,collateral collateralendeavor endeavorof ofDefendant Defenda t Saunders Saunders and andMr. Mr. Harley Harley most most certainly certainly corroboratively corroboratively suggests suggests akin akintoto their theirpresent efforts a;a: presentefforts common commonemployment employmentof oftheir theirPCRA PCRAlaw lawunderstanding understandingtrying tryingtotocircumvent circumventthe theact’s act'sknown lmowntirr tir e ie' 1 bar barand andresultant resultantabsence absence of ofnecessary necessaryjudicial judicialjurisdiction. jurisdiction. See SeeCommonwealth CommonwealthExhibit ExhibitC-2 C-2 -! I HabeasPetition Habeas Petitionoriginally originallydocketed docketedcivilly civillyMay May23, 23,2016; 2016;and andN.T. N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp.32-42, 32-42,55-71, 55-71,8181- - 8383 See Seealso alsoSaunders Saundersv.v.Brittain, Brittain,etetal, al,2020 2020WL WL5505148, 5505148,infra, infra,quoting quotingand andciting citingCommonwealt Commonwealh v.v.Saunders Saunderssupra. supra. 2323 ; The The totality of both the relevant relevant direct direct and circumstantial compell d circumstantial evidence inescapably compelled I I this court court to conclude the proffered police report report — - witness ti ness statement statement (D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) is just just njt npt I itimate, legi timate, but but rather rather a fraudulent fraudulent attempt attempt by the the Defendant Defendant as as assisted by by his his “brother”, Mr. Harve "brother", Mr. f Harvey] both both familiar familiar with collateral collateral litigation, litigation, to to circumvent circumvent the the known known PCRA time time bar. N.T. 2/24/23, bar. N.T. 2/24/23, pp 3 I 18-71, 18-71, 81-83; 81-83; and and N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, 11/20/23, pp. pp. 7, 7, 45-47, 45-47, 50. 50. See See also also Defense Defense Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 -■ [# Statement; Statement; and and Commonwealth Commonwealth Exhibit Exhibit C-2 Habeas Petition C-2 --- Habeas Petition originally originally docketed docketed civilly civilly May May 22 J ! iI 2016. 2016. I In In his his Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925b) statement statement of of errors, errors, the the Defendant Defendant maintains maintains that that the the court co ,J e. erroneously erroneously abused abused its its discretion discretion by by failing failing to to find findjurisdiction had had been been established established to to address address ti e 1 merits merits of ofhis his amended amended PCRA petition. petition. See See Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement Statement dated dated October October 9,9, 2024, 2024, ) . I 2; 2; and and AOPC AOPC Case Case Docket. Docket. ItIt isis Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' contention contention that that the the court court erred erred by not by not . I proceeding proceedingto to aamerits merits review reviewwhen whenthe the contested, contested, previously previouslyunknown unknownstatement statement(D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) w: ws s I admitted admitted into into evidence evidence pursuant pursuant to to Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 901 901 and and without without objection; objection; the the statement statement was was clearly clearly ii exculpatory exculpatory in in nature; nature; and andthe the purported purported police police witness witness statement statementhad had never never been been presented presented toto ti ele I I defense defense before before trial. trial. Id. Id. Hence, Hence, the the Defendant Defendant asserts asserts aaPCRA PCRA timeliness timeliness exception exception was was indeec inde d established. established. Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' position positionisisof ofcourse coursedirectly directlyjuxtaposed juxtaposedwith withthe thecourt’s court's finding fin · J that that such such aa statement statement was was previously previously unknown unknown toto the the·Commonwealth Commonwealth because because ititwas was fabricated. fabricate J See SeeDefense DefenseExhibit ExhibitD-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6---Statement. Statement. See Seealso also Order Orderdated datedJune June20, 20,2024. 2024. This Thiscourt courtacknowledges acknowledgesthat thatPCRA PCRAcounsel counseleffectively effectivelyargued arguedand anddid dideverything possible everythingpossib e within withinthe thebounds bounds of oflegal legaland andethical ethicaladvocacy advocacytotocircumstantially circumstantiallyestablish establishand andauthenticate authenticateti ejje I police policereport. report. For Forthe thepurpose purposeof ofmaking making an anevidentiary evidentiaryhearing hearingrecord recordininlitigating litigatingwhether whethertl ej 1le Defendant Defendant established established that that he he qualified qualified under under aa PCRA PCRA time-bar time-bar exception, exception, the the police police witness witness i statement statement(D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) was was admitted admittedinto into evidence. evidence. N.T. N.T.2/24/23, 2/24/23,pp. pp. 89-90. 89-90. See Seealso alsoDefen; Defen:le I i ' 24 24 i Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 -- Statement. Statement. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, the court court was was clear clear that that the question ofjurisdiction jurisdiction was was yet yet to be decided. decided. See See N.T. N.T. 11/20/23, 11/20/23, pp. pp. 58-60. 58-60. See See also also Petitioner’s Petitioner's Post-Hearing Post-Hearing Memorandum Memorandum of Law docketed March 6, 6, 2024; 2024; Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Response Response to Petitioner’s Petitioner's Poj t- Post- Hearing Memorandum Memorandum of of Law Law docketed docketed May May 1, 2024; 2024; and and Orders Orders dated dated January January 5, 5, 2023, 2023, andd October October 24, 24, 2023. 2023. As As itit related rlated e to to aa trial trial court’s court's factfinder factfinder function function in in the the context context of of PCRA PCRA evidentiay evidenti presentations, presentations, the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of ofPennsylvania Pennsylvania has has opined opined the the following: following: Further, Further, wewe recall recall that that when when reviewing reviewing aa credibility credibility determination determinationby by the PCRA court, this Court is bound by the court’s credibility the PCRA court, this Court is bound by the court's credibility determinations, determinations, unless unless those those determinations determinations are are not not supported supported by by the the record. Commonwealth v.». Flor, record. Commonwealth Flor, --- Pa. Pa. -, -, 259 259 A.3d A.3d 891, 891, 902 902 (2021). (2021). The The credibility credibility determinations determinations are are totobe beprovided provided“great "greatdeference[,]” deference[,] and indeed, they are “one of the primary reasons PCRA hearings and indeed, they are "one of the primary reasons PCRA hearings are are held held inin the the first first place[.]” place[.]" Id.Id. atat 910-911 910-911 (citing (citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.». Johnson, Johnson, 600 600 Pa.Pa. 329, 329, 966 966 A.2d A.2d 523,523, 539 539 (2009)). (2009)). Moreover, Moreover, we we must conduct our review in the light most favorable to the prevailing must conduct our review in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, party, ininthis this instance, instance, the the Commonwealth. Commonwealth. Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Mason, Mason, 634 634 Pa. Pa. 359, 359, 130130 A.3d A.3d 601, 601, 617 617 (2015). (2015). Given Giventhat that the the PCRA PCRA court, court, as as fact-finder, fact-finder, has has the the opportunity opportunity to to listen listen toto witnesses, witnesses, toto observe observe their their demeanor demeanor and and attitude, attitude, we we have have stated stated that that “there "there isis nono justification for an appellate court, relying justification for an appellate court, relying solely solelyupon upona cold record, a cold record, toto review review the the factfinder’s factfinder's first-hand first-hand credibility credibility determinations.” determinations." Commonwealth Commonwealthv.». White, White, 557 557Pa.Pa. 408, 408, 734 734A.2d A.2d374, 374,381381 (1999). (1999). Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.Rizor, Rizor,304 304A.3d A.3d1034,1034, 1058 1058(Pa. (Pa.2023). 2023). See Seealso alsoCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Ortiz-Pagan^ Ortiz-Paga} 322 322 A.3d A.3d 247, 247, 251 251 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2024) 2024) citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Johnson, Johnson, 966 966 A.2d A.2d 523, 523, 539 (Pl 539 (Pa.| 2009)(“The 2009)"The PCRA PCRA court’s court's witness witness credibility credibility findings findings are are binding binding on on this this Court, Court, so so long long asas 1i efe record record supports supports those those findings.”); findings."); andand Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Rosario, Rosario, 314 314 A.3d A.3d 888, 888, 892 892 (Pa. Super. (Pa.Supet. 2024) quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson supra 966 A.2d at 539 (“ ‘A PCRA court passes 2024) quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson supra 966 A.2d at 539 ( A PCRA court passes on , witness witness credibility credibility atatPCRA PCRAhearings, hearings, andandits its credibility credibilitydeterminations determinations should shouldbe beprovided gre t! providedgreat; deference deferencebybyreviewing reviewingcourts.’ courts.' ”). "). '' InInlight lightthe thePennsylvania’s Pennsylvania'sappellate appellatecourts’ courts'legal legalinstructions instructionscited citedimmediately immediatelyabove, above,th: t s1 court courtjust just disagrees disagrees with with the the tacit tacit argument argument advanced advanced by by the the Defendant’s Defendant's appellate appellate complain complains 25 25 statement statement that that the the mere mere admission admission of of the the at at issue issue police report - police report - witness witness statement statement (D-PCRA-L) (D-PCRA-5) mandates mandates it it conclude conclude that that Defendant Defendant Saunders Saunders met met his burden of his burden of establishing the averred establishing the averred time time bar j exemptions). exemptions). See See 1925(b) 1925b) Statement Statement dated dated October 9, 2024. October 9, 2024. See also Defense See also Defense Exhibit D-PCRA-6 Exhibit D-PCRA;6 - - Statement. Statement. See See generally generally Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Edmiston supra 65 Edmiston supra 65 A.3d at 346 A.3d at 346 (Emphasis (Emphasis I added)(citation added)(citation omitted)( omitted)( “[The "[The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court Court has] has] repeatedly repeatedly stated stated it it is is the appellant’s appellant's burden burden to allege and prove that that one one of the timeliness of the timeliness exceptions exceptions applies. applies. Whether Whether [the [the appellant] appellant] has has carried carried his his burden burden is is aa threshold threshold inquiry prior to inquiry prior to considering considering the the merits merits of of any any claim.”); claim."); Commonwealth Commonwealth v. • Reid Reid supra supra 235 235 A.3d A.3d at at 1158 1158 (Emphasis added)( “" ... (Emphasis added) ... [I]t [I]t is is tiree petitioner petitioner who who bears bears the the burden burden to to allege allege and andprove prove that that one of the one of the timeliness timeliness exceptions exceptions applies.’ ); applies.'); ' and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Pew Pew supra supra 189 189 A.3d at 488 A.3d at 488 citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Taylor Taylor supra supra 65 65 A.' A..idd ' at at 468 468 (Emphasis (Emphasis added)(“The added)("The petitioner petitioner bears bears the the burden burden of ofpleading pleading and and proving proving an an applicable applicab]~ ! statutory statutory exception. exception. If If the the petition petition is untimely untimely and and the the petitioner petitioner has has not pied and proven eu. not pled ' I exception, exception, the the petition petition must must be be dismissed dismissed without without aa hearing hearing because because Pennsylvania Pennsylvania courts courts are are witho it withont the the jurisdiction jurisdiction to to consider consider the the merits merits of of the the petition.”). petition."). This This court court as as like like any arty factfinder factfinder was was free free oo accept accept all, all, some some and/or and/or none none of of the the collateral collateral hearing’s hearing's evidentiary evidentiary presentation, presentation, and and itit for for those those reasons reasons discussed discussed above above most most reasonably reasonably declined declined to to find find the the purported purported policer policer report report - -- witness witnes I I statement statement (D-PCRA-6) (D-PCRA-6) was was legitimate. legitimate. See See Defense Dcfnsc Exhibit Exhibit D-PCRA-6 D-PCRA-6 — -- Statement. Statement. [ II I “The "The function function of ofaa section section 9545(b)(l)[i](ii) 9545(b)(1)[i]ii) analysis analysis is is that that of of aa gatekeeper.” gatekeeper." Commonweal h Commonwealth v. ». Cox, Cox, 636 636 Pa. Pa. at at 616, 616, Fn. Fn. 11, 11, 146 146 A.3d A.3d at at 229, 229, Fn. Fn. 11. 11. “" ‘A 'A gatekeeping gatekeeping function function contemplates contemplates that that there there may may be be a reason reason to to open open the the gate.’ gate.' ” Commonwealth Commonwealth v. • Robinson, Robinson, 185 185 A.3d A.3d 1055, 1055, 1062 1062I I (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2018) 2018) citing citing and and quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Cox Cox supra. supra. It It was was incumbent incumbent on on this this court co to to address address the the threshold threshold question question of ofjurisdiction jurisdiction and and credibility credibility here here comes comes into into play play which which is is aid remains remains within within the the exclusive exclusive province province of of this this court court as as the the finder finder of of fact. fact. See See Standard Standard of ofReview Reviev 26 26 infra., infra, pp. pp. 28-29. 28-29. See also Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Bretz, Bretz, 830 830 A.3d A.3d 1273, 1273, 1275 1275 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2003) citing 2003) citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Yarris, Yarris, 557 557 Pa. Pa. 12, 12, 731 731 A.2d A.2d 581, 581, 587 587 (1999)(Where (1999)(Where Superior Superior Court Court found found no jurisdiction, jurisdiction, despite despite the the parties’ parties' briefs briefs submitted submitted and and PCRA PCRA court’s court's opinion opinion being being silent silent on on question. question. “However, "However, because because the the issue issue of of timeliness timeliness implicates implicates our our jurisdiction, jurisdiction, we we may may consider consi the the matter sua spontetfr, matter sua sponte."); and Commonwealth v.v. Rizor and Commonwealth Rizor supra supra 304 304 A.3d A.3d at at 1085 1085 (citations (citations omitted) omitted) | I I I It [is] "It [is] incumbent incumbent upon upon the the court court to to protect protect and and uphold uphold the the integrity integrity of of the the judicial judicil process process ...” Commonwealth v.v. Orie, ... " Commonwealth Orie, 88 88 A.3d A.3d 983, 983, 1000 1000 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2014), 2014), appeal denied, 627 appeal denied, 627 Pa; 757, 757, 99 99 A.3d A.3d 925 925 (2014)(Table)(Grant (2014)Table)Grant ofof mistrial mistrial while while jury jury was was deliberating deliberating upheld upheld whe'e whee admission admission of offorged forged documents documents was wasnot not only only aafraud fraudupon uponthe the court, court, but butalso also undermined underminedthe thejury’s jury'$ factfinding factfindingfunction.). Seealso function.). See also Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harper, Harper, 890 890A.2d A.2d 1078 1078 (Pa. Super. 2006)(PCR (Pa.Super. 2006)(PC A court court properly properly rescinded its decision rescinded its decision to to grant grant aa new new trial trial on on murder murder and and robbery robbery charges charges whcl wh J! months monthslater laterititwas wasdetermined determinedtestimony testimonythat thatled ledto tonew newtrial trialwas waspeijured perjuredand andwitness witnesswas wascoercs coercd into intotestifying.) testifying.) Courts Courts will will not notcountenance countenancefraud fraudand andwhen whenaajudicial judicial determination determination isis obtained obtain d I through throughits itsuse, use,the thecourt courthas hasthe theinherent inherentpower powerto torescind rescindthat thatdecision: decision: Id. Id. ।I I i • From From the the consideration consideration.of ofthe the above above tenets tenets of ofthe the law, law, itit follows follows then then when when aa court court ij s� confronted confrontedwith, withwhat whatititbelieves believeswith withgood goodcause causetotobe befraud fraudfrom fromthe theevidence evidencepresented, presented,ititmt m sit I ensure ensurethat thatsuch suchdoes doesnot notaffect affectits itsdecision. decision. ItItisisfor forthis thisreason reasonand andthose thosebelow belowthat thatthe thecot co ri · cannot cannotsubscribe subscribetotoPCRA PCRAcounsel’s counsel'sconstruing construingof ofthe thelaw lawfound foundininCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Blakeney, Blaken l 648 648Pa. Pa.347, 347,367, 367,193 193A.3d A.3d350, 3 50,364 364(2018) (2018)from fromwhich whichhe hesubmits submitsthe theveracity veracityof ofananalleged allegedfast f. f I goes goesonly onlytotothe themerits meritsof ofthe theunderlying underlyingclaim claimrather ratherthan thantototimeliness. ("Infact, timeliness. (“In fact,aapetitioner is petitioner[is required requiredonly onlytoto allege allegeand andprove proveone oneofofthe thetimeliness timelinessexceptions exceptions applies. applies. Substantiating Substantiatingtill t t veracity veracityofofthe thefact factupon uponwhich whichthe theclaim claimisispredicated predicatedisisaaquestion questionfor forthe themerits meritsreview reviewof ofthe 27 27 i claim.”). claim."). Id. Id. (Justice Wecht). Wecht). See also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Robinson, Robinson, 651 Pa. Pa. 190, 190, 219, 219, 204 A. A.3d 326, 326, 343-44 (Pa. (Pa. 2018)(OISR) 2018)OISR) and Id., Id, 651 Pa at at 235-36, 235-36, 204 A.3d at at 354 (OISA). (OISA). First, First, the the above above fragmented cited cited decisions-are decisions are Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court Court affirmances affirmances ists I a result result of an an equally equally divided divided court. court. When When aajudgment judgment is is affirmed affirmed by by an an equally equally divided court, no0 divided court, precedent precedent,is is established, established, and and any any such such holding holding on on other other cases cases is is not not binding. binding, Commonwealth Commonwealth r. J1 - I Mosley, Mosley, 114 114 A.3d A.3d 1072, 1072, 1082, 1082, Fn. Fn. 1 111 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2015) 2015) citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• James, James, 493 493 Pa. Pa. 5451, 545, I 427 427 A.2d A.2d 148 148 (1981). (1981). Second, Second, there there is is aa more more recent recent and and precedential precedential Supreme Court iff Supreme Court Pennsylvania Pennsylvania opinion opinionwhich which is is consistent consistent with with the the approach approach taken taken by by this this court. court. See See Commonwealth Commonwea h ' v.v. Towles Towles supra supra 300 300 A.3d A.3d at at 415-17. 415-17. There, There, the the trial trial court court was was found found to to have have properly properly made made credibility credibility determinations determinations based based on on what what was was presented presented at at the the PCRA PCRA evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing as as to to the t k applicability applicability of ofthe the PCRA jurisdictional time PCRAjurisdictional time bar. bar. Id. Id IV. IV. Standard Standardof ofReview Review [ I The ThePennsylvania PennsylvaniaSupreme Supremeand andSuperior Superior Courts Courts have haveheld heldthat thatappellate appellatereview reviewof ofaaPCRA PC pleading’s pleading's dismissal dismissalisis conducted: conducted: ... . [I]n [IJnthe the light lightmost mostfavorable favorableto to the the prevailing prevailingparty party atatthe the PCRA PCRA j level. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa.Super. level. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa.Super. j 201 2010).0). This Thisreview reviewisislimited limitedto tothe thefindings findings of ofthe thePCRA PCRAcourtcourtand and | the theevidence evidenceof ofrecord. record. Id.Id. WeWewill willnotnotdisturb disturbaaPCRAPCRAcourt's court'sruling ruling ! if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. Id. if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. Id. I This Court may affirm a PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the This Court may affirm a PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the i record recordsupports supportsit.it. Id. Id. We Wegrant grantgreat greatdeference deferencetotothe thefactual factualfindings findings ' of ofthethePCRA PCRAcourtcourtandandwill willnotnotdisturb disturbthose thosefindings findingsunlessunlessthey theyhavehave no nosupport supportininthe therecord. record. Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Carter,Carter,21 21A.3d A.3d680, 680,682 682 (Pa.Super. 201 1). However, we afford no such deference to its legal (Pa.Super. 2011). However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. conclusions. Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.Paddy, Paddy,609 609Pa.Pa.272, 272,1 5 A.3d 15 A.3d43431,1, 442 442 J (2011); (2011);Commonwealth Commonwealthv.•Reaves Reaves[supra [supra592592Pa. Pa.atat141-42, 141-42,923923A.2dA.2d j atat 1124]. 1124]. Further, Further,wherewherethe thepetitioner petitionerraises raisesquestions questionsof oflaw, law,our our 1 i 28 28 standard of standard review is of review is de de novo nova and and our our scope of review scope of review is is plenary. plenary. ' Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Colavita, Colavita, 606 606 Pa. Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 1,993 A.2d 874, 874, 886 886 (2010). (2010). 'i iI; Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Rykard, Rykard, 55 55 A,3d 1177, 1183 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2012) 2012) quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Fold, Fo q, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). See also Commonwealth v. Conforti, 300 A.3d 715, 7'5 v. Conforti, 300 A.3d 715, 725 (Pa. (Pa. 2023) 2023) quoting quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v. • Koehler, Koehler, 3636 A.3d A.3d 121, 121, 177-78 177-78 (Pa, (Pa. 2012) citi.'ig' 2012) citih g Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Colavita, 601 Pa. Colavita, 601 Pa. 1, 1, 992 A.2d 874, 992 A.2d 874, 886 886 (Pa. (Pa. 2010) and citing 2010) and citing Commonwealth Commonwealth]. t|. Wharton, 273 Wharton, A.3d 561, 273 A.3d 561, 567 567 (Pa. (Pa. 2021) 2021) citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v». v. Washington, Washington, 592 Pa. 698, 592 Pa. 698, 9279'7 A.2d 568, A.2d 593 (Pa. 568, 593 (Pa. 2007) 2007) citing citing Commonwealth v. v. Roney, 622 Pa. Roney, 622 Pa. 1, 1, 79 A.3d 595, 79 A.3d 603 (Pa. 595, 603 2013). (Pa 201. $) Based on Based on the the court’s court's factual factual findings findings of of credibility, credibility, Defendant Defendant Saunders’ Saunders' latest latest PCPA PC ! petition simply petition simply failed failed to to establish establish an an exception exception to to the the PCRA PCRA time time bar. bar. The The Defendant’s Defendant's petition petitiph I I therefore was therefore was properly properly dismissed dismissed as as untimely. untimely. The The courts courts lack lack jurisdiction jurisdiction to to address address the the relative relative I merits of merits of his his claim because the claim because the underlying basis for underlying basis requisite exemption the requisite for the exemption asserted asserted was was not not found found I to be to believable or be believable or valid. Promoting justice valid. Promoting justice cannot cannot be be based on what based on court in what aa court its factfindi in its factfinding function concludes function concludes is is aa false false document. document. J 29 29 _ ■ i 1See Appeal Notice docketed July 25, 2024. See Appeal Notice docketed July 25, 2024. 2 See Order dated June 28, 2024. 2 SeeOrder dated June 28, 2024. 342 as “PCRA.”). to as (Hereafter referred to seq. (Hereafter et. seq. $$9541 et. 342 Pa.C.S. §§954 Pa.C.S. "PCRA."). See 4 Amended PCRA Defendant's Amended See Defendant’s Petition docketed PCRA Petition August 26, docketed August 26, 2022. 2022. I s See N.T. 2/24/23; and N.T. • See 11/20/23. See N.T. 2/24/23; and N.T. 11/20/23. See also Amended PCRA Defendant's Amended also Defendant’s Petition docketed PCRA Petition August 26, docketedAugust 2022; 26, 20:12; Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition ... dated December 13, 2022; Petitioner's Post-Hear] Commonwealth’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition ... dated December 13, 2022; Petitioner’s Post-Hearngig Memorandum of Memorandum Law docketed of Law March 6,6, 2024; docketed March and Commonwealth’s 2024; and Commonwealth's Response Petitioner's Post-Hear to Petitioner’s Response to Post-Hearing ng Memorandum of Memorandum Law docketed ofLaw May 1,1, 2024. docketed May 2024. I As per such As per prior order such aa prior and understanding order and ofthe understanding of parties, the the parties, subjectmatter the subject ofthe matterof the evidentiary hearings was evidentiary hearings limited was limi ed the pleading met the petitioner met the petitioner whether the addressing whether to addressing to and proof pleading and proofrequirements under42 requirements under 42Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i) and Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(l)(i) or an 'or (ii) of the PCRA necessary to accord the courts the requisite jurisdictional authority to decide the amended collateralcal (ii) of the PCRA necessary to accord the courts the requisite jurisdictional authority to decide the amended collate pleading’s merits. See purported merits. pleading's purported Notice dated HearingNotice SeeHearing dated January and Order 2023; and January 5,5, 2023; October24, OrderOctober 2023. See 24, 2023. also NT. SeealsoWT. 2/24/23; Amended PCRA Defendant's Amended and Defendant’s 11/20/23; and N.T. 11/20/23; 2/24/23; N.T. PCRA Petition docketed August Petition docketed 26, 2022. August 26, 2022. See generllly See generally Pa.R.Crim.P.907(3). Pa.RCrim.P. 907(3). 7See Order dated June 28, 2024. 7 See Order dated June 28, 2024. 818 Pa.C.S. §2502(b). "18 Pa.C.S. §2502(b). 9 18 Pa.C.S. §3701. 9 18 Pa.C.S. §3701. 101"18 Pa.C.S. §903(3701). 18 Pa.C.S. 5903(3701). 11 18 Pa.C.S. §6106. 18Pa.C.S. $6106. 12 See 102(b). Pa.C.$.§1$1102(b). See 1818Pa.C.S. 13 The "Prisoner Mailbox Rule" where an incarcerated 13 The “Prisoner Mailbox Rule” where an incarcerated pro defendant's filing date is deemed when it is placed in � se defendant’s filing date is deemed when it is placed in th[ prose hands of prison authorities for mailing is not relevant under the circumstancesatatbar hands of prison authorities for mailing is not relevant under the circumstances otherthan barother therewas thanififthere wasananissue isslue pertaining petition being the petition pertaining toto the filed within being filed one year within one ofthe year of date the the date claim could the claim have been could have presented. iSeee been presented. Commonwealthv.v.Crawford, Commonwealth andCommonwealth (2011);and 1281(2011); 1277,1281 A.3d1277, Crawford,1717A.3d Commonwealthv.v.Wojtaszek, A.2d1169, 951A.2d Wojtaszek,951 1170,In.[n. 1169,1170, 3(Pa. Super. 2008). See also $42 Pa.C.S. 9545(b)(2). Given the court's findings underlying its disposition; 3 (Pa. Super. 2008). See also §42 Pa.C.S. 9545(b)(2). Given the court’s findings underlying its disposition; howev sr, however, intoplay. comeinto notcome doesnot simplydoes determinationsimply suchaadetermination forsuch necessityfor thenecessity the play. |I ,l l
I I I
V. Conclusion V. Conclusion
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Saunder, S., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-saunder-s-pasuperct-2025.