J-S43016-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RICHARD SMITH : : Appellant : No. 3323 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1203321-1991
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MARCH 10, 2026
Richard Smith appeals from the order dismissing as untimely his Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We
affirm.
In 1993, a jury convicted Smith of first-degree murder, possession of
instrument of crime, and abuse of a corpse. 1 The trial court sentenced him to
life imprisonment on the murder conviction, one to two years’ imprisonment
on the abuse of corpse conviction, and two and a half to five years’
imprisonment on the possession of instrument of crime conviction. This Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence in 1994. Smith did not file a petition for
allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 907, and 5510, respectively. J-S43016-25
In May 2022, Smith filed the instant PCRA petition. He filed a
supplemental petition in August 2024,2 alleging that he had “obtained newly
discovered evidence from a fellow inmate . . . that [the] PCRA court and
counsel had [a] financial relationship during his 1999 PCRA Proceeding.”
Amended PCRA Petition, filed August 23, 2024, at 4. He maintained that
another inmate informed him in July 2024 that at the time of Smith’s initial
PCRA proceedings,3 the attorney who represented him in the proceedings and
the PCRA court judge who presided over the proceedings had worked together
on a book entitled “Pennsylvania Benchbook for Criminal Proceedings, Third
Edition.” Id. at 6. Smith maintained the PCRA court judge, who had also
presided over his trial, “failed to safeguard his Constitutional rights to secure
this wrongful conviction” and his counsel, as partner on the book project, “had
a serious interest to scuttle [Smith’s] PCRA proceeding to maintain the illusion
that [the judge] was an administrator of justice.” Id. at 6-7. He alleged the
court failed to notify him of the alleged conflict of interest and he would not
have discovered the collaboration on the book without the help from the
inmate. He alleged he suffered prejudice because the failure to inform him of
the conflict of interest “constituted a breakdown in the judicial process which
interfered with his due process rights.” Id. at 7. ____________________________________________
2 Smith also filed a leave to amend and an amended petition in March 2023.
The claims raised in that amended petition are not at issue on appeal.
3 Smith attached to the petition an affidavit from the inmate which stated the
inmate told Smith about the book in July 2024. Amended PCRA Petition, filed August 23, 2024, at Exh. A.
-2- J-S43016-25
The PCRA court addressed whether Smith satisfied the government
interference exception to the PCRA time bar, and concluded that Smith did not
do so. It found Smith failed to substantiate his allegations or “present[] any
information whatsoever as to how any such collaboration between counsel and
the court had any negative impact on his case, either in the form of counsel’s
ineffectiveness, or any other alleged conflict of interest.” PCRA Ct. Op., filed
Nov. 15, 2024, at 2-3. The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss
the petition without a hearing and in November 2024 dismissed the petition.
Smith timely appealed.
Smith raises the following issue: “Did [the] PCRA court err when it
dismissed [Smith’s] claim of newly discovered evidence that his initial PCRA
court[] judge . . . had a conflict of interest?” Smith’s Br. at 4.
“Our standard of review for an order denying PCRA relief is whether the
record supports the PCRA court’s determination, and whether the PCRA court’s
determination is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d
317, 319 (Pa.Super. 2011). Any PCRA petition must be filed within one year
from the judgment of sentence becoming final, unless a statutory exception
applies. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence is final “at the
conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme
Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the
expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The
time-bar exceptions are:
-3- J-S43016-25
(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.
Id. at § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner must raise the claim within one year
from the time the claim could have been raised. Id. at § 9545(b)(2).
In his brief, Smith relies on the newly discovered fact exception to the
PCRA time-bar.4 He claims that the initial PCRA court had a conflict of interest
because it had a financial relationship with his PCRA counsel during the 1999
PCRA proceedings. He alleges he raised this claim within one year of learning
of it from his fellow inmate. Smith maintains he has a governmental
interference claim because he received new evidence of the conflict of interest.
He disputes the PCRA court’s finding that he did not substantiate the
assertions with evidence, noting he added the book information as an exhibit.
Smith further argues the court erred in finding Smith had not presented
information on how the collaboration had a negative impact on his case,
claiming that the government interference “altered the constitutional structure
4 Smith also raised the newly-discovered fact exception in his supplemental
PCRA petition.
-4- J-S43016-25
of [Smith’s] PCRA proceeding.” Smith’s Br. at 11. He claims the initial PCRA
proceedings violated his due process rights.
We conclude Smith did not satisfy the newly discovered fact exception
to the PCRA time bar. To qualify for the exception, a petitioner must establish
that “the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could
not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth
v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017); accord Commonwealth v.
Brown, --- A.3d ---, 2026 WL 227113, at *9 (Pa. 2026). Here, Smith arguably
claims due diligence in his allegation that he would not have obtained the
information about the authors of the book without the help of the fellow
inmate. However, he did not explain how that is so. He has never offered a
reason he could not have obtained the information earlier with the exercise of
due diligence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S43016-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RICHARD SMITH : : Appellant : No. 3323 EDA 2024
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1203321-1991
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MARCH 10, 2026
Richard Smith appeals from the order dismissing as untimely his Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We
affirm.
In 1993, a jury convicted Smith of first-degree murder, possession of
instrument of crime, and abuse of a corpse. 1 The trial court sentenced him to
life imprisonment on the murder conviction, one to two years’ imprisonment
on the abuse of corpse conviction, and two and a half to five years’
imprisonment on the possession of instrument of crime conviction. This Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence in 1994. Smith did not file a petition for
allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 907, and 5510, respectively. J-S43016-25
In May 2022, Smith filed the instant PCRA petition. He filed a
supplemental petition in August 2024,2 alleging that he had “obtained newly
discovered evidence from a fellow inmate . . . that [the] PCRA court and
counsel had [a] financial relationship during his 1999 PCRA Proceeding.”
Amended PCRA Petition, filed August 23, 2024, at 4. He maintained that
another inmate informed him in July 2024 that at the time of Smith’s initial
PCRA proceedings,3 the attorney who represented him in the proceedings and
the PCRA court judge who presided over the proceedings had worked together
on a book entitled “Pennsylvania Benchbook for Criminal Proceedings, Third
Edition.” Id. at 6. Smith maintained the PCRA court judge, who had also
presided over his trial, “failed to safeguard his Constitutional rights to secure
this wrongful conviction” and his counsel, as partner on the book project, “had
a serious interest to scuttle [Smith’s] PCRA proceeding to maintain the illusion
that [the judge] was an administrator of justice.” Id. at 6-7. He alleged the
court failed to notify him of the alleged conflict of interest and he would not
have discovered the collaboration on the book without the help from the
inmate. He alleged he suffered prejudice because the failure to inform him of
the conflict of interest “constituted a breakdown in the judicial process which
interfered with his due process rights.” Id. at 7. ____________________________________________
2 Smith also filed a leave to amend and an amended petition in March 2023.
The claims raised in that amended petition are not at issue on appeal.
3 Smith attached to the petition an affidavit from the inmate which stated the
inmate told Smith about the book in July 2024. Amended PCRA Petition, filed August 23, 2024, at Exh. A.
-2- J-S43016-25
The PCRA court addressed whether Smith satisfied the government
interference exception to the PCRA time bar, and concluded that Smith did not
do so. It found Smith failed to substantiate his allegations or “present[] any
information whatsoever as to how any such collaboration between counsel and
the court had any negative impact on his case, either in the form of counsel’s
ineffectiveness, or any other alleged conflict of interest.” PCRA Ct. Op., filed
Nov. 15, 2024, at 2-3. The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss
the petition without a hearing and in November 2024 dismissed the petition.
Smith timely appealed.
Smith raises the following issue: “Did [the] PCRA court err when it
dismissed [Smith’s] claim of newly discovered evidence that his initial PCRA
court[] judge . . . had a conflict of interest?” Smith’s Br. at 4.
“Our standard of review for an order denying PCRA relief is whether the
record supports the PCRA court’s determination, and whether the PCRA court’s
determination is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d
317, 319 (Pa.Super. 2011). Any PCRA petition must be filed within one year
from the judgment of sentence becoming final, unless a statutory exception
applies. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence is final “at the
conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme
Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the
expiration of time for seeking the review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). The
time-bar exceptions are:
-3- J-S43016-25
(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.
Id. at § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A petitioner must raise the claim within one year
from the time the claim could have been raised. Id. at § 9545(b)(2).
In his brief, Smith relies on the newly discovered fact exception to the
PCRA time-bar.4 He claims that the initial PCRA court had a conflict of interest
because it had a financial relationship with his PCRA counsel during the 1999
PCRA proceedings. He alleges he raised this claim within one year of learning
of it from his fellow inmate. Smith maintains he has a governmental
interference claim because he received new evidence of the conflict of interest.
He disputes the PCRA court’s finding that he did not substantiate the
assertions with evidence, noting he added the book information as an exhibit.
Smith further argues the court erred in finding Smith had not presented
information on how the collaboration had a negative impact on his case,
claiming that the government interference “altered the constitutional structure
4 Smith also raised the newly-discovered fact exception in his supplemental
PCRA petition.
-4- J-S43016-25
of [Smith’s] PCRA proceeding.” Smith’s Br. at 11. He claims the initial PCRA
proceedings violated his due process rights.
We conclude Smith did not satisfy the newly discovered fact exception
to the PCRA time bar. To qualify for the exception, a petitioner must establish
that “the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could
not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth
v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017); accord Commonwealth v.
Brown, --- A.3d ---, 2026 WL 227113, at *9 (Pa. 2026). Here, Smith arguably
claims due diligence in his allegation that he would not have obtained the
information about the authors of the book without the help of the fellow
inmate. However, he did not explain how that is so. He has never offered a
reason he could not have obtained the information earlier with the exercise of
due diligence. In that respect, he failed to carry his burden to establish the
applicability of a time-bar exception.
Even if we read his petition generously as asserting that he could not
have obtained the evidence earlier, his substantive claim lacks merit. Smith
appears to assert that the PCRA court’s alleged conflict of interest violated his
due process rights and “so undermined the truth-determining process that no
reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(i). Smith has failed to plead and prove this claim.
Smith’s bald assertions that an alleged conflict of interest between the PCRA
court and counsel “constituted a breakdown in the judicial process which
interfered with his due process rights” is not sufficient. Smith has pointed to
-5- J-S43016-25
no ruling or action by the PCRA court that exhibited bias, or any meritorious
PCRA claim that counsel should have raised in the prior proceeding, because
of the alleged conflict of interest. As the PCRA court concluded, Smith “did not
present any information whatsoever as to how any such collaboration between
counsel and the court had any negative impact on his case, either in the form
of counsel’s ineffectiveness, or any other alleged conflict of interest.” PCRA
Ct. Op at 2-3.5,6
Order affirmed.
Date: 3/10/2026
5 To the extent Smith is attempting to claim that his prior PCRA counsel was
ineffective, we would conclude the claim lacked merit because Smith failed to plead and prove prejudice, as he has not proven the outcome of the PCRA proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Velazquez, 216 A.3d 1146, 1149 (Pa.Super. 2019) (listing the three ineffectiveness prongs, including that a petitioner must prove any alleged ineffectiveness prejudiced him by establishing that “there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceedings would have been different”).
6 The trial court concluded Smith’s PCRA petition was untimely because he failed to satisfy the government interference exception. We can affirm the PCRA court’s decision on any legal basis supported by the certified record. Commonwealth v. Williams, 125 A.3d 425, 433 n. 8 (Pa.Super. 2015).
-6-