Com. v. Saunder, S.
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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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 [filed Aug. 27,] 2002) (unpublished memorandum), and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on December 2, 2003.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 filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.).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 filed Mar. 24, 2017) (unpublished mem.).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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
J-S33046-25
Date: 11/25/2025
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.
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^:
[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)].
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
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
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
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
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.,
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
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).
£
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<ij
A.3 j
I
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
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
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.
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■
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
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
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
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
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
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.
;
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
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
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
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
I
,l
l
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
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. $)
I I
I
V. Conclusion V. Conclusion
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
_ ■ 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. |
Com. v. Saunder, S. (Com. v. Saunder, S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.