J-S29011-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
JAMES SIMON THOMPSON,
Appellant No. 1000 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered June 14, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001761-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 17, 2016
Appellant, James Simon Thompson, appeals pro se from the post-
conviction court’s June 14, 2015 order denying his petition under the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful
review, we vacate the court’s order and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this memorandum decision.
Appellant’s case involves a torturous procedural history, which we are
constrained to set forth in order to fully explain the issues he is raising on
appeal, and the basis for our decision to remand this case for further
proceedings.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S29011-16
On April 14, 2009, Appellant was arrested in an apartment located at
1020 Main Street in Republic, Pennsylvania, after officers searched that
apartment and discovered two guns and 17 packets of crack cocaine. Prior
to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the warrantless
search of the apartment was illegal, and that inculpatory statements he
made after the search should be suppressed because he had not received
Miranda1 warnings or knowingly, voluntarily, and/or intelligently waived his
Miranda rights.
A suppression hearing was held on November 15, 2010. There, the
Commonwealth’s sole witness was Ryan Reese, a former detective with the
Fayette County Drug Task Force. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 11/15/10, at 3.
Reese testified that on April 14, 2009, he had obtained an arrest warrant for
Appellant in an unrelated matter, and served the arrest warrant for
Appellant at an apartment located at 1020 Main Street in Republic,
Pennsylvania. Id. Reese testified that during the course of arresting
Appellant, they discovered drug paraphernalia in plain sight on a table in the
room, including “needles, spoons, a plate, [and] a mirror….” Id. at 6.
Reese also discovered, in the pocket of a sweatshirt found in the room,
“seventeen individually wrapped rocks of crack cocaine.” Id. at 5.
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-2- J-S29011-16
Reese further testified that Appellant consented to a search of the
entire apartment, and stated that he had not made any promises or threats
to Appellant to garner that consent. Id. at 7, 8. The search led to the
discovery of “a handgun under Appellant’s pillow where he [had been] lying
and[,] several feet from the hooded sweatshirt where the crack cocaine was
found, there was another handgun found.” Id. at 7. Reese elaborated that
the second gun was found “in a drawer almost three feet from where the
hoodie was hanging.” Id. at 8. Reese testified that “[a]fter everything was
found, [Appellant] admitted to [Reese] that the drugs were his and he
admitted that in front of other officers.” Id. at 10. On direct-examination,
Reese claimed that Appellant’s admissions occurred prior to Miranda
warnings being given, but testified that he was not “asking [Appellant] any
questions” when Appellant voluntarily confessed. Id.
However, on cross-examination, Reese was pressed further on the
issue of whether he was questioning Appellant when he admitted the drugs
were his. Id. at 21. At that point, Reese claimed that he had provided
Miranda warnings to Appellant directly after discovering the crack cocaine in
the sweatshirt, and that the warnings were given “prior to [Reese’s] asking
to look around.” Id. Reese testified that Appellant was not asked to sign
any Miranda rights waiver form, but gave “his verbal consent to waive
those rights.” Id. Reese maintained that he did not threaten Appellant in
any manner, or promise him anything, prior to Appellant’s inculpatory
statements. Id.
-3- J-S29011-16
On November 18, 2010, the trial court issued an order denying
Appellant’s motion to suppress. Trial was scheduled, but Appellant
ultimately decided to enter a negotiated guilty plea. On May 16, 2011,
Appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance (PWID), possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug
paraphernalia, and two counts of persons not to possess a firearm. He was
sentenced to an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years’ incarceration. Appellant did
not file a direct appeal.
On July 22, 2014, Appellant filed his first, pro se PCRA petition.
Therein, he asserted, inter alia, that he had discovered new evidence,
namely a letter from a woman named Dawn Millholland, dated July 11,
2014, which Appellant attached to his petition. In the letter, Ms. Millholland
begins by stating, “You don’t know me but I know you.” See Exhibit
Attached to PCRA Petition, 7/22/14, at 1. She then tells Appellant that the
guns and drugs recovered from the apartment at 1020 Main Street in
Republic, Pennsylvania, belonged to her ex-boyfriend, Robert Williams, who
had hidden the drugs there when he was evicted from the apartment the
day before Appellant was arrested. Id. More specifically, Ms. Millholland
claimed that on April 13, 2009, “the day [Williams] got evicted from … the
apartment at 1020 Main Street, [she] saw him pack small amounts of crack
cocaine into 17 mini baggie[s] [and] place them in another bigger baggie
and then hide them in a childs [sic] hoodie [and] hung [sic] it on a wooden
coat rack.” Id. at 3. Ms. Millholland alleged that Mr. Williams returned to
-4- J-S29011-16
the apartment to retrieve the guns and drugs later in the evening of April
13th, but the locks on the apartment door had been changed. Id. at 4.
Finally, Ms. Millholland said that she “felt compelled to come forward [and]
to tell the truth” in order to “clear [her] conscious [sic]” and to help
Appellant “clear [his] name.” Id. at 5.
On July 29, 2014, the PCRA court appointed James Natale, Esq., to
represent Appellant. Attorney Natale filed a petition to withdraw from
representing Appellant on November 5, 2014. Therein, counsel stated that
Appellant’s petition was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) (requiring a
PCRA petition to be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes
final), and that Appellant’s claim failed to meet any of the exceptions to the
PCRA’s one-year time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii).2 Attorney
Natale explained:
2 That section states:
(b) Time for filing petition.--
(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that:
(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; (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5- J-S29011-16
[Ms. Millholland’s] letter is irrelevant, because [Appellant] plead [sic] guilty [to] possessing the cocaine, handguns, and drug paraphernalia. In addition, even assuming that the letter is true, it does not prove that [Appellant] is innocent of these charges. Dawn Millholland writes that the cocaine and handguns were left behind when her ex-boyfriend, Robert Williams, was evicted from the apartment on April 13, 2009, the day before [Appellant] was arrested inside of the apartment on April 14, 2009. Based on Dawn Millholland’s [letter], [Appellant] had an entire day in which to take possession of the cocaine and handguns. During this time, [Appellant] gained access to the apartment, and based on his own admissions,[3] he located the cocaine and handguns and took possession of them. Therefore, [Appellant’s] claim is without merit.
Petition to Withdraw, 11/5/14, at 8-9 (unnumbered).
On November 21, 2014, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
notice of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition, and also issued an order
granting Attorney Natale’s petition to withdraw. Appellant filed a pro se
request for an extension of time to respond to the court’s Rule 907 notice,
which the PCRA court granted. On December 16, 2014, Appellant filed a _______________________ (Footnote Continued)
(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.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). 3 Attorney Natale provided no citation to where in the record Appellant admitted to taking possession of the cocaine and handguns. We assume that counsel was considering Appellant’s guilty plea as constituting such admissions.
-6- J-S29011-16
“Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration,” challenging Attorney Natale’s
effectiveness and claiming that Attorney Natale misrepresented the record
when stating that Appellant had an entire day to take possession of the
drugs and guns ostensibly left by Mr. Williams. Appellant explained that he
arrived at 1020 Main Street at some point between 2:00 and 4:00 a.m. on
April 14, 2009, and asked the owner of the house in which the apartment
was located for a ride home. The building owner stated that he did not have
enough gas to drive Appellant home, and told Appellant he could sleep in the
basement apartment, i.e., the apartment from which Mr. Williams had just
been evicted, until the gas station opened. According to Appellant, he fell
asleep in that apartment and officers arrived shortly thereafter - around
6:00 a.m. - to arrest him. Therefore, he contended that he did not take
possession of the drugs and guns left in the apartment by Mr. Williams, and
that Attorney Natale was ineffective for withdrawing on this basis. Appellant
also claimed that he did not know about Ms. Millholland’s existence, or “what
she knew about the cocaine and handguns[,]” until he received her letter,
and that had he known about Ms. Millholland, he would not have pled guilty.
“Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration,” 12/16/14, at 8-9.
On February 11, 2015, the PCRA court issued a second Rule 907 notice
of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition, reasoning that Appellant had
made no attempt to explain why he could not have discovered earlier, with
the exercise of due diligence, Ms. Millholland’s letter/statement. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, 2/11/15, at 2.
-7- J-S29011-16
Before the PCRA court issued an order dismissing Appellant’s petition,
however, he filed a pro se, amended PCRA petition on March 5, 2015.
Therein, Appellant presented a new claim of after-discovered evidence based
on corruption allegations against Ryan Reese, the officer who had arrested
Appellant and testified at the pretrial suppression hearing in this case.
Attached to his petition Appellant included three articles, the first stating
that Reese had been placed on administrative leave from the police force,
and the second stating that the city council had accepted Reese’s resignation
in light of an ongoing, criminal investigation regarding Reese. Neither of
those articles provided details on the criminal allegations against Reese. In
the third article, dated February 18, 2015, the newspaper quoted the
Fayette County District Attorney (D.A.) as stating that “the Commonwealth
does not intend to call Ryan Reese to testify” in any future cases, and was
reviewing prior cases where Reese was substantially involved. See
Appellant’s Amended PCRA Petition, 3/5/15, Attached Article (Susy Kelly,
County DA Plans to Drop Charges Against Alleged Drug Dealer, Herald-
Standard, Feb. 18, 2015, at 1, A3). That article also reported that the D.A.
was dropping charges against a man accused of drug possession because
the only witness to the charged offense was Reese.4 ____________________________________________
4 A recent, online newspaper article details the up-to-date charges against Ryan Reese, revealing that he is now awaiting trial in three separate cases involving sexual assault offenses. See Ashlie Hardway & Sheldon Ingram, Former Connellsville Cop Accused of Forcing Woman Into Sex After Arrest (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8- J-S29011-16
On March 20, 2015, the PCRA court issued a third Rule 907 notice,
stating that Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim based on Reese was
not filed within 60 days of the date that claim could have first been
presented. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2) (“Any petition invoking an
exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within 60 days of the date
the claim could have been presented.”). The court noted that the earliest of
the news articles presented by Appellant was dated December 26, 2015, and
Appellant’s petition was not filed until March 5, 2015, 69 days after that
article was published.
On April 2, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se response to the court’s Rule
907 notice, stating that he did not discover Reese’s corruption until February
23, 2015, when he received a letter from his sister containing the newspaper
articles. Appellant also contended that even if he did know about the
December 26, 2014 newspaper article, it was not until the article published
on February 18, 2015, that Appellant became aware of the fact that Reese’s
_______________________ (Footnote Continued)
Must Stand Trial, Pittsburgh’s Action News 4 (May 4, 2016, 6:17 PM), http://www.wtae.com/news/former-connellsville-cop-faces-new-sex- charges/38277230. In one case, Reese is alleged to have forced a woman, who he arrested in 2012, to engage in sex acts in exchange for reducing her charges or not filing charges at all. In another case, Reese is accused of accepting sexual favors from a minor in exchange for not filing drug charges against her. That young woman also alleged that Reese raped her and told her that “no one would believe her because she was a ‘junkie whore.’” Id. In the third case, Reese is charged with threatening to jail a Fayette County woman, who was the subject of a drug investigation, if the woman did not perform sex acts with him.
-9- J-S29011-16
credibility was so gravely diminished that the D.A. was no longer willing to
call Reese to testify, and was dropping charges against a defendant where
Reese was the only witness in the case. Appellant stressed that in his case,
Reese was the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing regarding
Appellant’s purported confession to possessing the drugs and guns, and
Appellant’s alleged consent to search the apartment. Appellant denied
making either of these statements, and averred that had he known Reese
was corrupt, he would not have pled guilty but proceeded to trial to
challenge Reese’s credibility. Appellant argued that he had entered the
guilty plea “falsely, and only because a corrupt lone arresting and charging
officer falsified his affidavit of probable cause and falsely claimed [Appellant]
confessed….” Response to Rule 907 Notice, 4/2/15, at 10.
Before the court ruled on Appellant’s claim regarding Reese, he filed a
third, pro se amended petition, challenging the legality of his sentence under
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), and decisions by this
Court filed after Alleyne and ruling certain mandatory minimum sentencing
statutes unconstitutional in light thereof. See Commonwealth v.
Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (deeming unconstitutional 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 9721 and 9723); Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748
(Pa. Super. 2014) (deeming unconstitutional 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508). On April
6, 2015, the PCRA court issued a fourth Rule 907 notice of its intent to
dismiss, relating only to Appellant’s illegality of sentencing claim.
- 10 - J-S29011-16
Appellant filed a motion seeking a continuance to file a response to the
court’s April 6, 2015 Rule 907 notice. On April 23, 2015, the PCRA court
granted that motion, giving Appellant until May 15, 2015 to file a response.
On May 8, 2015, Appellant filed another request for an extension of time,
attaching another newspaper article regarding Ryan Reese that was
published on April 23, 2015, stating that Reese had now been indicted on
criminal charges. The article also quoted the D.A. as stating that several
cases involving Reese had already been dismissed, and that the D.A.’s office
planned to dismiss, or nol pros, other cases where Reese was a key witness.
The PCRA court granted Appellant’s second request for an extension of
time to file a response, giving Appellant “until June 10, 2015 to amend his
PCRA.” Order, 5/13/15. The court also granted Appellant’s subsequent
request for a transcription of the record of his pretrial motion to suppress
hearing at which Reese was the sole witness. However, Appellant did not
file an amended petition by June 10, 2015, and on June 19, 2015, the PCRA
court issued an order dismissing his petition. Therein, the court discussed
its reasons for dismissing Appellant’s claim of after-discovered evidence
regarding Reese’s corruption, first stating that “Reese’s alleged criminal
conduct” would only be used by Appellant as impeachment evidence, thus
failing to meet the “after-discovered evidence test.”5 Order Dismissing ____________________________________________
5 The PCRA court utilized the after-discovered evidence test reiterated by this Court in Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532 (Pa. Super. 2012):
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 11 - J-S29011-16
Petition, 6/19/15, at 3. The court also stressed that “[e]ven if the after-
discovered evidence against Reese was significant, [Appellant] has
absolutely no argument under the fourth prong of the test because his
sentence is the result of a guilty plea. There was no trial.” Id. Finally, the
court noted that “the criminal charges against Reese are still pending” and,
“[t]hus, any perceived misconduct at this time is ‘pure conjecture’ and would
not compel any different result in [Appellant’s] case.” Id. (citing Foreman,
55 A.3d at 538) (finding there would not be a different jury verdict where a
police officer was found not guilty on all criminal charges subsequent to the
PCRA proceedings).
Additionally, the PCRA court ruled that the information regarding
Reese’s corruption was “publicly available” as of December 26, 2014, the
date of the earliest newspaper article discovered by Appellant’s sister. Id. at
4. Because Appellant’s petition was not filed until March 5, 2015, the court
found that Appellant had failed to timely raise this claim within 60 days of
when he could have first discovered it. Id.
To obtain relief based on after-discovered evidence, [an] appellant must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.
Id. at 537 (citation omitted).
- 12 - J-S29011-16
The PCRA court also rejected Appellant’s challenge to the legality of his
sentence under Alleyne, Valentine, and Cardwell, concluding that
Appellant “did not receive a mandatory minimum sentence. Rather, the
[c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] based on aggravating factors as outlined in
the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines, which is still constitutional under
Valentine and Cardwell.” Id. at 5.
Finally, the PCRA court briefly commented on its basis for dismissing
Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim regarding Ms. Millholland’s letter,
simply stating that it “still agrees with [Attorney] Natale regarding the
letter’s [lack of] relevance, … and [is] not swayed by any further argument
from [Appellant] on this issue.” Id. at 4.
On June 26, 2015, Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal.
Herein, he raises five issues for our review:
1. Whether the PCRA court erred in adopting counsel’s petition to withdraw?
2. Whether the court erred in not granting an evidentiary hearing to explore the factual underpinnings of []the Dawn Millholland Letter[]?
3. The court’s February 10, 2015, “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” invited further litigation by suggesting [Appellant] made no attempt to explain why []the Dawn Millholland Letter[] could not have been obtained earlier by “the exercise of due diligence[.]”[]
Accordingly, did the court err in granting counsel’s motion to withdraw prior to its raising the “due diligence” inquiry with Appellant (now proceeding pro se)?
4. [Appellant’s] pro se second amended PCRA petition asserted newly discovered evidence, namely that the arresting officer, and only witness against [Appellant], i.e.[,] [] Ryan Reese, had
- 13 - J-S29011-16
been completely discredited and disabled from testifying in any future criminal prosecutions involving drug task force matters.
Accordingly, did the court apply the wrong legal standard by invoking the 60-day rule stating that Appellant “did not bring this claim within 60 days as required by §9545([b])(2)[?”]
5. Following counsel’s withdrawal, counsel sent a letter to Appellant informing him that he had an additional ground for relief based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alleyne decision.
Appellant submitted a new filing with the court raising the specific claim for relief identified in counsel’s letter of March 12, 2015.
Accordingly, did the PCRA court err by dismissing Appellant’s ground for relief on the premise that the sentence was not based on “aggravating factors” as outlined in the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines?
Appellant’s Brief at 5-6 (unnecessary capitalization and emphasis omitted).
Before we evaluate these issues, we address Appellant’s failure to file
a Rule 1925(b) statement with the PCRA court, as on that basis the court did
not file an opinion in this case. See Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 8/4/15.
The certified record reveals that an order for Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement was issued by the court on July 7, 2015. However, that order
was not entered on the trial court’s docket until July 13, 2015; thus, under
Rule 1925(b)(2), Appellant had until August 3, 2015 to file a timely Rule
1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2) (“The judge shall allow the
appellant at least 21 days from the date of the order’s entry on the
docket for the filing and service of the Statement.”) (emphasis added).
Problematically, on July 23, 2015, the PCRA court issued another order
stating that Appellant had until that day - July 23rd - to file a timely Rule
- 14 - J-S29011-16
1925(b) statement.6 See Order, 7/23/15 (stating “This Court has already
filed a 1925(b) Order, dated July [7], 2015, by which [Appellant] was given
twenty-one (21) days, or until today, July 23, 2015, to mail his concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal.) (emphasis added). The
court’s July 23rd order demonstrates that the court incorrectly calculated the
Rule 1925(b) deadline by utilizing the date on which it had issued the Rule
1925(b) order, i.e., July 7, 2015, rather than the docketing date of that
order, i.e., July 13, 2015. The court’s error was further compounded by the
fact that the July 23rd order was not served on Appellant until July 24, 2015;
thus, by the time Appellant received the July 23rd order, he would have
reasonably (but erroneously) concluded that the time for filing his Rule
1925(b) statement had lapsed.
Under these circumstances, we decline to find waiver of Appellant’s
issues. The court’s July 23, 2015 order directed that Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement was due that day, which was only nine days after the
court’s Rule 1925(b) order was docketed on July 13, 2015. Effectively, then,
the court violated Rule 1925(b)’s clear mandate that the appellant be
provided at least 21 days from the docketing of the Rule 1925(b) order to
6 That order was issued in response to Appellant’s filing of a second notice of appeal, and was intended to clarify the status of Appellant’s initial appeal filed on June 26, 2015.
- 15 - J-S29011-16
file a timely statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2). Therefore, we will not
deem Appellant’s issues waived.7
Proceeding to an assessment of Appellant’s claims, we preliminarily
note that this Court’s standard of review regarding an order denying a
petition under the PCRA is whether the determination of the PCRA court is
supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007).
We must first examine the timeliness of Appellant’s petition, because
the PCRA time limitations implicate our jurisdiction and may not be altered
or disregarded in order to address the merits of a petition. Commonwealth
v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the PCRA, any petition
for post-conviction relief, including a second or subsequent one, must be
filed within one year of the date the judgment of sentence becomes final,
unless one of the exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii)
applies. Additionally, we reiterate any petition attempting to invoke one of
these exceptions “shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).
7 We also point out that the issues presented by Appellant on appeal were adequately addressed in the various Rule 907 notices filed by the PCRA court. Accordingly, the lack of a Rule 1925(a) opinion by the court does not hamper our meaningful review of Appellant’s claims, or necessitate remand for the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement and opinion.
- 16 - J-S29011-16
Here, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final in 2011 and thus,
his petition, filed on July 22, 2014, is facially untimely. For this Court to
have jurisdiction to review the merits thereof, Appellant must prove that he
meets one of the exceptions to the timeliness requirements set forth in 42
Pa.C.S. § 9545(b). In this vein, Appellant argues that he meets the after-
discovered evidence exception of section 9545(b)(1)(ii) based on both Ms.
Millholland’s letter and the allegations of corruption and criminal charges
lodged against Ryan Reese.
In Bennett, our Supreme Court stressed the difference between an
after-discovered evidence claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and an
after-discovered evidence claim under the timeliness exception set forth in
42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1271. The Court
clarified that “the exception set forth in (b)(1)(ii) does not require any
merits analysis of the underlying claim[,]” but only “requires that the ‘facts’
upon which such a claim is predicated must not have been known to
appellant, nor could they have been ascertained by due diligence.” Id. at
1271-72 (quoting Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 852 (Pa.
2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Here, with regard to Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim
premised on Ms. Millholland’s letter, the PCRA court seemingly rejected the
merits of that claim without first examining whether Appellant satisfied a
timeliness exception. Notably, in its order dismissing Appellant’s petition,
the PCRA court stated that it “still agrees with [Attorney] Natale regarding
- 17 - J-S29011-16
the letter’s relevance, … and [is] not swayed by any further argument from
[Appellant] on this issue.” Order Dismissing Petition, 6/19/15, at 4. Aside
from the fact that the court’s merits analysis was not appropriate, the
court’s cursory rejection of this after-discovered evidence claim is flawed in
another regard. In Attorney Natale’s petition to withdraw, he explained that
Ms. Millholland’s letter was inconsequential because Appellant “plead [sic]
guilty [to] possessing the cocaine, handguns, and drug paraphernalia[,]” and
because Appellant “had an entire day in which to take possession of the
cocaine and handguns.” Petition to Withdraw, 11/5/14, at 8-9
(unnumbered). In the PCRA court’s March 20, 2015 Rule 907 notice, it
adopted Attorney Natale’s rationale and rejected Appellant’s claim regarding
Ms. Millholland’s letter. See Rule 907 Notice, 3/20/15, at 1 (stating
“Attorney Natale … provided adequate reasoning for why [Ms. Millholland’s]
letter is irrelevant …, yet [Appellant] continues to allege it to no one’s
reassurance but his own. This court agrees with Attorney Natale’s reasoning
and will consider this issue no further.”).
However, the PCRA court ignored, in its March 20, 2015 Rule 907
notice (and in its order dismissing the petition), the arguments and factual
contentions raised by Appellant in his amended petition filed on December
16, 2014. In that amended petition, filed after Attorney Natale’s petition to
withdraw was granted, Appellant challenged Attorney Natale’s conclusion
that Appellant had an entire day to take possession of the drugs and guns
ostensibly left by Mr. Williams. Appellant explained that he had only been in
- 18 - J-S29011-16
the apartment for approximately 2 to 4 hours before officers arrived to
arrest him. Additionally, Appellant claimed that Ms. Millholland’s letter was
not ‘irrelevant’ simply because he had pled guilty. Appellant maintained
that, had he known of Ms. Millholland’s existence and her knowledge of this
case, he would not have entered that plea. See “Pro Se Motion for
Reconsideration,” 12/16/14, at 8-9. Despite accepting Appellant’s amended
petition, which presented these additional arguments and factual
contentions, the PCRA court did not assess them in rejecting his after-
discovered evidence claim premised on Ms. Millholland’s letter. Thus, the
court erred.
Additionally, we reiterate that the PCRA court erred by not first
determining whether Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim satisfied
section 9545(b)(1)(ii). We acknowledge that the PCRA court did state, in
its February 11, 2015 Rule 907 notice, that Appellant failed to act with due
diligence, which is a requirement of demonstrating the timeliness exception
of section 9545(b)(1)(ii). On appeal, Appellant attacks the PCRA court’s
conclusion, pointing to the “factual contentions” presented in his December
19, 2014 response to the court’s November 21, 2014 Rule 907 notice.8
Appellant’s Brief at 22.
8 We point out that this response to the court’s Rule 907 notice was timely, as the PCRA court granted Appellant an extension of time, directing him to respond to its November 21, 2014 Rule 907 notice by January 30, 2015.
- 19 - J-S29011-16
In that response, Appellant stated that he did not know about Ms.
Millholland’s existence, or “what she knew about the cocaine and
handguns[,]” until he received her letter. Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration,
12/16/14, at 8-9. Ms. Millholland’s letter also indicated that Appellant had
no knowledge of her, as she began by stating, “You don’t know me but I
know you.” See Ms. Millholland’s Letter, 7/11/14, at 1 (attached to
Appellant’s PCRA Petition filed 7/22/14).
In the court’s February 11, 2015 Rule 907 notice, the PCRA court did
not specifically address these factual claims, or analyze whether they
amounted to due diligence. Instead, the court cursorily stated that
Appellant had made ‘no attempt’ to explain why he could not have
discovered, with the exercise of due diligence, Ms. Millholland’s
letter/statement earlier. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, 2/11/15, at 2.
Additionally, the PCRA court did not evaluate whether Appellant knew the
information contained in Ms. Millholland’s letter prior to receiving it and filing
his PCRA petition. In these regards, the PCRA court’s analysis of whether
Appellant satisfied the timeliness exception of section 9545(b)(1)(ii) based
on Ms. Millholland’s letter is flawed and/or incomplete. Thus, remand is
required.
Additionally, we conclude that remand is warranted for further
examination of Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim pertaining to the
corruption allegations and criminal charges pending against Ryan Reese. We
need not delve into the merits of Appellant’s attack on the PCRA court’s
- 20 - J-S29011-16
rejection of this after-discovered evidence claim, because it is apparent from
the record that Appellant was denied his right to counsel in litigating this
issue, which was raised in an amendment to his first petition for post-
conviction relief.9 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) (stating “when an unrepresented
defendant satisfies the judge that the defendant is unable to afford or
otherwise procure counsel, the judge shall appoint counsel to represent the
defendant on the defendant's first petition for post-conviction collateral
relief”); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 572 Pa. 572, 818 A.2d 494,
500–01 (2003) (holding that “an indigent petitioner, whose first PCRA
petition appears untimely, is entitled to the assistance of counsel in order to
determine whether any of the exceptions to the one-year time limitation
apply”). At the point when Appellant first raised this claim, Attorney Natale
had been permitted to withdraw and Appellant was representing himself.
Thus, the PCRA court should have appointed new counsel to assess the
9 The PCRA court acknowledged the “disordered record in this matter,” and the various, pro se filings of Appellant during the course of the PCRA proceedings below. See Order Dismissing Petition, 6/19/15, at 1 n.1. The court essentially considered all of Appellant’s filings as amendments to his initial PCRA petition filed on July 22, 2014. Id. Notably, the court stated that “all issues addressed here are of the same PCRA[,]” and then assessed both Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim pertaining to Ms. Millholland’s letter, as well as the after-discovered evidence claim regarding Ryan Reese’s corruption and criminal charges. Id.
- 21 - J-S29011-16
merits of the after-discovered evidence claim regarding Reese.10
Accordingly, we must remand Appellant’s case to remedy this error.
In sum, Appellant has presented two claims of after-discovered
evidence that warrant further examination. The torturous record in this
case, as evidenced by our lengthy discussion supra, reveals that Appellant
filed numerous amendments to his PCRA petition and responses to the
court’s repeated Rule 907 notices. Because Appellant’s claim of after-
discovered evidence based on Reese’s corruption and criminal charges
necessitates the appointment of counsel, we direct the PCRA court to
appoint Appellant counsel on remand. We further order the PCRA court to
permit counsel to file an amended petition presenting, in one document, all
of Appellant’s arguments pertaining to both of his after-discovered evidence
claims involving Ms. Millholland’s letter and Reese’s corruption/criminal
charges. Finally, there is enough in the record before us to demonstrate
genuine issues of material fact concerning both of these after-discovered
10 Appellant does not assert that he was denied his right to counsel in litigating this after-discovered evidence claim. However, this Court has expressly held “that where an indigent, first-time PCRA petitioner was denied his right to counsel - or failed to properly waive that right - this Court is required to raise this error sua sponte and remand for the PCRA court to correct that mistake.” Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2011).
- 22 - J-S29011-16
evidence claims; thus, the PCRA court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing
regarding those two issues.11
Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 6/17/2016
11 Appellant presents other claims involving Attorney Natale’s ineffectiveness, and challenges the PCRA court’s denial of his legality of sentencing claim premised on Alleyne, Valentine, and Cardwell. However, neither of these claims necessitates further review. “It is well settled that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will not overcome the jurisdictional timeliness requirements of the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Wharton, 886 A.2d 1120, 1127 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted). Additionally, claims challenging the legality of sentence are subject to review within the PCRA, but must first satisfy the PCRA’s time limits. See Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). Appellant offers no discussion of what exception his illegal sentence claim satisfies. In any event, he would not be able to satisfy the most obviously applicable exception, i.e., section 9545(b)(1)(i), because this Court has already held that Alleyne does not satisfy that exception, see Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014), and neither Valentine nor Cardwell announced new constitutional rules. Accordingly, the PCRA court properly denied these claims.
- 23 -