Com. v. Richardson, R. ( 2021 )

J-S02002-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT RICHARDSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1744 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 23, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0905521-1995
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 3, 2021
Appellant, Robert Richardson, appeals from the order dismissing his
petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§
9541-9546. After careful review, we vacate the order denying relief, and
remand for further proceedings.
The PCRA court summarized the relevant facts underlying Appellant’s
conviction, and the subsequent procedural history of this case, as follows:
The evidence adduced at trial showed that [Appellant] shot victim
Vaughn Gaillard after Gaillard declined a rematch after [Appellant]
and his co-defendant Clifford Brown lost a game of dice outside
“J’s Big Shot Bar” (aka “Ike’s”) on Narragansett Street and
Stenton Avenue in Philadelphia. At Brown’s direction, [Appellant]
shot Gaillard in the side and back as he walked away with the
winnings from the dice game. As Gaillard was lying on the ground,
Brown told [Appellant] to shoot again and take his money, and
[Appellant] complied.
Witness Dana Lucas (“Lucas”) testified at trial that she heard the
men argue over Gaillard[’s] not wanting to continue playing dice
and that she saw [Appellant], with whom she had gone to middle
J-S02002-21
school and knew from the neighborhood, shoot Gaillard. After the
shooting, she went to the hospital and slipped a note to a female
police officer, identifying [Appellant] and Brown as the
perpetrators. Lucas testified at trial that she feared for her life if
she spoke to the police, which was why she didn’t approach any
officers at the scene. Later, on the same night as the shooting,
Lucas gave two statements to police and identified [Appellant] in
a photo array. Subsequently, Lucas was placed in protective
housing prior to trial due to retaliatory threats.
Witness Henry Jones, a longtime friend of [Appellant], Gaillard,
and Brown, provided a police statement and testified at the
preliminary hearing that he saw [Appellant] shoot Gaillard after
an argument over a game of dice. Jones later went into hiding
before trial, but police located him and placed him in custody for
trial. He testified at trial consistent with his prior statements[,]
except at trial he claimed that he did not see the actual shots fired.
On May 14, 1997, a jury found [Appellant] guilty of first-degree
murder, possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), and criminal
conspiracy. On July 16, 1997, [Appellant] was sentenced to life
imprisonment for [first-degree] murder, a concurrent [term of] 1
to 5 years[’] … imprisonment for PIC, and a consecutive term of 3
to 10 years[’] imprisonment for criminal conspiracy. The Superior
Court affirmed [Appellant]’s judgment of sentence on January 27,
2000[, and the] Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition
for allowance of appeal on July 10, 2000. [Commonwealth v.
Richardson, 752 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 2000) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 759 A.2d 922 (Pa. 2000).]
On February 27, 2001, [Appellant] filed his first pro se PCRA
petition. This was dismissed as meritless on September 12, 2001.
The Superior Court affirmed on October 2, 2002.
[Commonwealth v. Richardson, 815 A.2d 1130 (Pa. Super.
2002) (unpublished memorandum).] [Appellant] did not seek
further review.
Subsequently, [Appellant] filed a second PCRA petition in which
he claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call three
alleged eyewitnesses: Jamilliah Poston; Jaime Meekins; and fellow
inmate Christopher Jones, who would all testify that [Appellant]
was not the shooter.1 This was dismissed as untimely on April 20,
2007. A panel of the Superior Court reversed the PCRA court’s
dismissal and remanded the matter for a hearing on March 4,
2008. The Superior Court granted the Commonwealth’s
-2-
J-S02002-21
application for reargument and ultimately agreed that
[Appellant]’s second petition was untimely, [and t]he
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further review on September
28, 2009. [Commonwealth v. Richardson, 974 A.2d 1190 (Pa.
Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum) (en banc), appeal
denied, 980 A.2d 607 (Pa. 2009).]
1 [Appellant]’s co-defendant Brown was also convicted of
first[-]degree murder, PIC, and criminal conspiracy in
connection with the murder of Gaillard. During Brown’s
direct appeal, he claimed that alleged eyewitness William
Hannible, who happened to be incarcerated with Brown prior
to trial, would testify that Brown did not do anything to
instigate the shooting and that he did not tell [Appellant] to
shoot Gaillard. Hannible testified at an evidentiary hearing
on August 21, 2000. The PCRA court denied relief and the
Superior Court affirmed. At no time during his testimony at
the hearing did Hannible claim that “Hasan” was the true
shooter. Notably, William Hannible is the same person
[who] Robert Gore claims[,] in his undated, unsworn,
handwritten statement[,] told him that Hasan shot Gaillard.
Brown filed several more PCRA petitions. In each, he
claimed to have discovered new eyewitnesses while
incarcerated, including fellow inmate Shareef Cato (who
stated that he was present at the scene, that Lucas had
gone inside the bar just prior to the actual shooting, and
that [Appellant] shot Gaillard); fellow inmate Tyrone
Williams (who claimed Lucas was inside the bar during the
shooting); and fellow inmate Andrew Lewis (who claimed he
spoke with Lucas at the hospital and told her to implicate
Brown).
On May 8, 2008, while his appeal was still pending from his second
PCRA petition, [Appellant] filed a third pro se petition. This
petition was returned to [Appellant] as unfiled. On November 15,
2010, [Appellant] refiled this petition. It was dismissed as
untimely; the Superior Court affirmed this dismissal on November
7, 2012[, and t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his
petition for allowance of appeal on March 27, 2013.
[Commonwealth v. Richardson, 63 A.3d 820 (Pa. Super.
2012), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 1246 (Pa. 2013).]
On March 20, 2015, [Appellant] filed a fourth pro se petition, the
subject of the case at bar. On May 26, 2015, [Appellant] filed a
-3-
J-S02002-21
supplemental petition. On December 9, 2016, Benjamin Cooper[,
Esq.,] was appointed as PCRA counsel. On June 16, 2017, counsel
filed an amended petition. In his amended petition, [Appellant]
claimed that he found three new witnesses—Gregory Young,
Michael Fiddeman, and Robert Gore—who would testify that a man
named “Hasan[,]” who is now deceased, was the actual shooter.
He claimed that Young and Fiddeman fled from the scene
immediately after the shooting and never spoke to police. On
November 13, 2017, the Commonwealth filed [a] Motion to
Dismiss. On July 2 and 5, 2018, Judge Geroff conducted an
evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, [Appellant] produced Dana
Lucas as a surprise witness during the second day of testimony.2[,
1] Lucas recanted her testimony from trial and stated that she
was inside a bar and did not actually see the shooting. She further
testified that she struck a secret deal with a detective to have her
credit card fraud charges dropped in exchange for identifying
[Appellant] as the shooter. On November 8, 2018, counsel
amended his petition.
2 The Commonwealth strenuously objected to Lucas[’s]
testifying at the evidentiary hearing as [Appellant] had not
included her in his petition[,] nor had he submitted an
affidavit from her prior to the hearing. Rather, [Appellant]
and his counsel claimed that Lucas happened to reach out
to their investigator a few days before the hearing and that
she chose to come forward at that time.
On December 18, 2018, this matter was reassigned to this [c]ourt
from Judge Geroff’s judicial inventory. On April 23, 2019, this
[c]ourt sent [Appellant] a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to
[Pa.R.Crim.P] 907. On April 29, 2019, [Appellant] replied [pro se]
to the 907 notice, objecting to dismissal. On May 23, 2019, this
[c]ourt dismissed [Appellant]’s petition…. On June 13, 2019,
[Appellant] filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Court.
PCRA Court Opinion (“PCO”), 12/20/19, at 1-4.
____________________________________________
1 Additionally, Judge Geroff heard testimony from Appellant, Young, and
Fiddeman. See N.T., 7/2/18, at 9 (Young), 81 (Fiddeman); and see N.T.,
7/5/18, at 9 (Lucas), 106 (Appellant). Gore died before the start of the
hearing. N.T., 7/5/18, at 151.
-4-
J-S02002-21
The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement, and he did not file one. The court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion
on December 20, 2019.
Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
1. Did the Commonwealth violate due process of law when it failed
to disclose to trial counsel that Dana Lucas testified pursuant to
an agreement for leniency and failed to correct her false testimony
that she had no such deal?
2. Has Appellant met the standard for a new trial pursuant to the
newly[-]discovered evidence standard?
3. Is Appellant entitled to relief because he is actually innocent of
the offense?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
Initially, we note that:
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the
light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This
review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence
of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it is
supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. This
Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the
record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the
factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those
findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we
afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the
petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de
novo and our scope of review plenary.
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal
citations omitted).
Generally, the PCRA’s time limitations implicate our jurisdiction and may
not be altered or disregarded in order to address the merits of a petition. See
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 2007). Under the
-5-
J-S02002-21
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 following exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §
9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii) applies:
(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;
(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). Additionally, at the time Appellant’s petition
was filed, section 9545(b)(2) required that any petition attempting to invoke
one of these exceptions “be filed within sixty days of the date the claim could
have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2).2
____________________________________________
2An amendment to section 9545(b)(2), which became effective on December
24, 2018, changed the language to require that a petition “be filed within one
year of the date the claim could have been presented.” 42 Pa.C.S. §
-6-
J-S02002-21
I
We first address Appellant’s third claim, as it presents an attempt to
bypass the PCRA’s time limitations. Appellant argues that “this Court should
recognize a freestanding claim of actual innocence under the Pennsylvania and
federal constitutions” that is not subject to the PCRA’s time bar. Appellant’s
Brief at 45. Appellant asserts that such relief is potentially available “under
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution[,]”
and/or pursuant to the analogous and/or greater rights articulated under
“Article 1, Section 13 and Article 1, Section 9” of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. Appellant’s Brief at 42. Appellant cites for persuasive value
several cases from sister jurisdictions in which a freestanding claim of
innocence has been recognized, bypassing the typical timeliness restrictions
for collateral review of criminal convictions. See id. at 44-45.
The Commonwealth contends this claim was waived due to Appellant’s
failure to raise it in the PCRA court, and we are compelled to agree. Appellant
did not raise such a claim in his pro se petition, in an amendment thereto, or
in his response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice, nor has Appellant directed
this Court’s attention to where in the record such a claim was preserved below.
Accordingly, this claim was waived for purposes of this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised
____________________________________________
9545(b)(2). That amendment applies to any claims arising on or after
December 24, 2017, and, thus, does not apply to Appellant’s petition.
-7-
J-S02002-21
for the first time on appeal.”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), 2119(e) (requiring
an appellant’s brief to identify the place of raising or preserving of issues).
II
As to Appellant’s remaining claims, he first asserts that Lucas’s
recantation (and the related, subsidiary revelation that she had a deal with
police to have her charges ‘go away’ if she acquiesced to identifying Appellant
as the shooter), constitutes newly-discovered fact of a Brady3 violation that
satisfies the timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii). Appellant
accurately recounted Lucas’s testimony at the PCRA hearing as follows:
Dana Lucas testified that she was twenty-two years old at the
time of the shooting about which she testified. She confirmed that
she was at the location of the Ga[i]ll[]ard shooting. N[.]T[.,]
7/5/2018, [at] 9-10. She “had quite a bit” of alcohol to drink on
that night and she was intoxicated at the time of the shooting and
____________________________________________
3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “the
suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an
accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is
material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87….
The Supreme Court subsequently held that the duty to disclose
such evidence is applicable even if there has been no request by
the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 … (1976),
and that the duty may encompass impeachment evidence as well
as directly exculpatory evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473
U.S. 667, 676–77… (1985). Furthermore, the prosecution’s
Brady obligation extends to exculpatory evidence in the files of
police agencies of the same government bringing the prosecution.
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438… [(1995)];
Commonwealth v. Burke, … 781 A.2d 1136, 1142 ([Pa.] 2001).
Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 853–54 (Pa. 2005).
-8-
J-S02002-21
police interview. The shooting took place just outside of a bar,
and she was in the bar drinking when there was a commotion
outside the bar. Id. [at] 11. She swiveled in her chair to see
what it was, but she could not. She saw people running in and
out of the bar and she heard from her friend, Hank, that “Vaughn
got shot.” She related that Vaughn was her “best friend’s
boyfriend.” Id.[ at] 13-14. Hank said that “Quick” shot Vaughn.
Id.[ at] 15. She identified Quick as Appellant in court. Id.[ at]
16. She went outside minutes later and saw police on scene.
Id.[]
She spoke to a detective on scene who ask[ed] her if she “knew
what happened” and she responded that she did -- she said that
Quick shot Vaughn. She gave her name to the detective and told
him that she was on her way to the hospital. She said this because
it was what Hank told her. Id.[ at] 18. She admitted that she did
not see what happened. She was questioned in greater detail at
the hospital. Id.[ at] 21. She told the detective that she saw the
shooting, which was not true. She agreed to testify if asked. Id.[at] 24.
Her post-conviction affidavit was marked at the hearing at D-5.
Id.[ at] 25-26.
About a week after the shooting she was contacted on the phone
by the detective who asked to meet with her. The detective
showed her a mug shot of her. The detective then told her that
“we’ll help you if you help us.” She agreed and the detective told
her that he could make the charges “go away.” Id.[ at] 26-27.
She apologized for doing this:
I pretty much agreed to say what it was that I needed to
say to get my record clear and to go along with what they
wanted me to say. And I apologize for that. I had three
small children, and I’m frustrated. I’m hurt. I didn’t have
anybody in my corner. So I felt as though I had to look out
for myself at that time.12
Id.[ at] 27. She further explained that she lied to the police when
she said that she saw Quick shoot, and she reiterated that she
said that only because her friend Hank told her that was the case
and she believed it to be true. Id.[ at] 32. Thus, she admitted
to having two motives to lie: “I wanted somebody to be held
responsible for killing my friend. And at the same time, I wanted
a chance to get the type of job and live the type of life that my
kids and I needed to have.” Id.[ at] 32-33.
-9-
J-S02002-21
12 As noted above, no record of any conviction for Dana
Lucas currently exists on the Judicial Website, even though
she had been arrested on at least two prior occasions. It
thus appears that the charges “went away.” She explained
that she never had a trial, and when asked what happened
to the cases, she responded “they went away.” Id.[ at] 29.
In fact, she related that she subsequently obtained
employment at 601 Market Street, “the federal building” and
“nothing has come up.”
Lucas said that subsequent to Appellant’s trial she was not spoken
to by anybody on behalf of Appellant. Immediately before her
PCRA testimony, she learned from a friend that an investigator
was looking for her, and the friend provided her with the
investigator’s number. She was then subpoenaed to the hearing.
Id.[ at] 37-38. She reiterated that she signed the affidavit two
days before her hearing testimony. Id.[ at] 39.
Appellant’s Brief at 18-20 (emphasis in original).
The PCRA court’s opinion only fleetingly addressed Appellant’s Lucas-
related Brady claim with respect to the newly-discovered fact exception. See
PCO at 5-6. In fact, it is not clear if the court analyzed the underlying merits
of the claim under the ‘after-discovered’ evidence standard, or if it addressed
the standard for ‘newly-discovered’ evidence as an exception to the PCRA’s
time bar. Thus, it is appropriate to distinguish these standards. Our Supreme
Court has stated that:
[G]enerally, the exception to the PCRA’s time requirements set
forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) is now referred to as the “newly-
discovered fact” exception. While, on occasion, some courts have
used a variation of this phrase, … the phrase “newly-discovered
fact” timeliness exception, in our view, most accurately reflects
the requirements of subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), and is the least
likely to be confused with the after-discovered evidence eligibility-
- 10 -
J-S02002-21
for-relief provision set forth in subsection 9543(a)(2).[4] Thus, for
purposes of clarity and consistency, we encourage courts to utilize
the phrase “newly-discovered fact(s)” when referring to the
timeliness exception provided under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii).
***
To reiterate, the newly-discovered facts exception to the time
limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii),
is distinct from the after-discovered evidence basis for relief
delineated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2). To qualify for an exception
to the PCRA’s time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a
petitioner need only 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. However, where a
petition is otherwise timely, to prevail on an after-discovered
evidence claim for relief under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi), a
petitioner must prove that (1) the exculpatory evidence has been
discovered after trial and could not have been obtained at or prior
to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not
cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility;
and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict.
Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 628–29 (Pa. 2017) (citations
omitted). Importantly, the “newly[-]discovered [fact] exception, set forth in
Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), … does not require a merits analysis of the claim in
order for it to qualify as timely and warranting merits review. The exception
merely requires that the ‘facts’ upon which such a claim is predicated must
not have been known to [the] appellant, nor could they have been ascertained
by due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 852 (Pa.
2005).
____________________________________________
4 Section 9543(a)(2)(iv) permits relief under the PCRA when “exculpatory
evidence” unavailable at trial, “has subsequently become available and would
have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.” 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(2)(iv).
- 11 -
J-S02002-21
We must initially address the Commonwealth’s assertion that
“[Appellant] failed to raise this post-hearing claim as a basis for any statutory
exception to the PCRA statute’s timeliness requirement, a fatal omission he
makes no attempt to rectify on appeal.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 17. We
disagree. In the circumstances of this case, it was alleged by Appellant at the
first PCRA hearing, and acknowledged by the PCRA court in its opinion, that
Lucas was a surprise witness who only came forward days before the hearing,
long after Appellant’s pro se and first-amended PCRA petitions were filed. Her
testimony, at least facially, established a potential Brady violation, as she
stated that her in-court identification of Appellant as the shooter was
prompted by a deal to make her charges ‘go away,’ which contradicted her
trial testimony that no deal had been offered, despite acknowledging that she
had pending charges at that time. Prior PCRA counsel, Attorney Cooper,
attempted to raise this matter in a second Amended petition that followed the
hearing.5 In any event, in his pro se response to the court’s Rule 907 notice,
Appellant clearly attempted to raise a Brady claim in relation to Lucas’
testimony in response to the court’s assertion that the petition was to be
denied on the merits. The PCRA court then summarily dismissed the petition
____________________________________________
5 As acknowledged by Appellant through his current counsel, prior counsel’s
filing of the second amended petition was deficient in several ways. Attorney
Cooper filed that amendment without first seeking leave to do so.
Problematically, nothing in the record suggests that the PCRA court rejected
the filing, and the PCRA court does not clarify the matter in its Rule 1925(a)
opinion. The second amended petition reads as a summary of the testimony
provided at the hearings, and includes a summary of Lucas’ testimony, but it
does not specifically cite Brady or provide legal analysis as to that claim.
- 12 -
J-S02002-21
without having addressed Appellant’s response to the Rule 907 notice in any
way. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court never asserts that Appellant
waived this claim, instead providing an analysis rejecting the claim on the
merits, or for having been previously litigated. This suggests that the court
implicitly acknowledged that the claim had been sufficiently raised to permit
the court to address it. Given this record, and the apparent abandonment of
Appellant by Attorney Cooper at a critical time in the proceedings below, see
n.7 infra, we decline to find waiver in the specific circumstances of this case,
in the interests of both justice and judicial economy. Thus, we now turn to
address whether the new fact(s) established through Lucas’s testimony meets
an exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements.
The PCRA court states that Appellant “is unable to invoke the after-
discovered evidence exception to the time bar as he has failed to meet his
burden in his filings.” PCO at 7 (emphasis added). We can only assume the
court meant to assert that Appellant failed to invoke the newly-discovered fact
exception. As noted above, however, in the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice of
its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition, it made no mention of Appellant’s
failure to meet the timeliness requirement with respect to Lucas’s new
testimony, or with regard to any other claim. Instead, in a boilerplate form,
the PCRA court checked a box stating: “The issues raised in the [PCRA]
petition filed by your attorney are without merit.” Rule 907 Notice, 4/23/19,
at 1 (single page). The court did not check the box that stated: “Your petition
is untimely filed pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9545(b).” Subsequently, in the
- 13 -
J-S02002-21
order denying the petition, the PCRA court wrote, verbatim: “AND NOW, this
23rd day of May, 2019, after consideration of the motion to dismiss PCRA
petition based on Lack of Merit by the Commonwealth it is ORDERED that the
motion to dismiss based on Lack of Merit is Granted[.]” Order, 5/23/19, at 1.
Nevertheless, in its opinion, the PCRA court addressed the new facts
raised by Lucas’s testimony as follows:
Dana Lucas testified next as a surprise witness[,] as the
Commonwealth had no notice that the defense planned to call her
to testify. She significantly changed her account of the shooting.
At trial, she had testified that she heard the argument over dice
and that she saw [Appellant] shoot Gaillard. At the evidentiary
hearing, however, she stated that she overheard an argument
between the men playing dice as she was entering the bar, that
she spent the next 3 hours drinking herself into intoxication, and
that after she heard gunshots, a friend named “Hank” (aka Henry
Jones) ran into the bar and said “[Appellant] shot Vaughn.” She
testified that Hank told her that if anyone asked, she should say
that Quick was the shooter. Lucas testified that she spoke to a
male police officer at the scene and then spoke to the same man
again at the hospital. The Commonwealth produced documents
showing that she gave two statements to police that night, in
which she provided a detailed account of the argument, shooting,
and aftermath. In these statements, she identified [Appellant] as
the shooter. The police also showed her a photo array and she
identified [Appellant] once more. However, at the evidentiary
hearing, Lucas claimed that the detectives helped her write those
statements and stated that a week after the shooting, she met
with a detective who told her he would make her credit card fraud
charges disappear if she cooperated with the police. Lucas
testified that she never told anyone about being inside the bar
during the shooting and the deal with the detective until she
contacted an investigator in July 2018[,] just days before the
evidentiary hearing and he asked her to write down what
happened. []N.T.[,] 7/5/18, [at 15-103].
***
- 14 -
J-S02002-21
With respect to Lucas, [Appellant] admits that he learned of her
credit card fraud charges years before. In fact, he raised this issue
in his third PCRA petition, claiming that Lucas was relocated by
the Commonwealth and her open charges were dismissed in
exchange for her testimony against him. He alleged that he
received a copy of Lucas’[s] criminal record from a reporter at The
Legal Researcher Exhibit News on March 22, 2009, and that this
showed the charges were nolle prossed. The PCRA court
dismissed [Appellant]’s third petition as untimely and without
merit. The court held that [Appellant] failed to show due diligence
since Lucas’[s] criminal records could have been obtained sooner
from The Office of Judicial Records. Moreover, the court held that
this alleged after-discovered evidence would not compel a
different verdict since the Commonwealth “presented adequate
evidence of Petitioner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
notwithstanding Ms. Lucas’[s] alleged outstanding criminal case,”
which the jury was aware of as “Ms. Lucas testified that she had
open criminal charges regarding credit cards.” []PCRA [Court]
Opinion, 3/5/12, [at] 5 [n.]5[].
Additionally, [Appellant] fails to satisfy the prejudice prong as he
did not successfully plead and prove that the outcome of the trial
would have been different with this “new” evidence. Both Young
and Fiddeman’s accounts from the night of the shooting are highly
suspect, particularly since Fiddeman is a fellow inmate at SCI -
Huntingdon. As for Lucas, [Appellant] claims that Lucas was the
“only eyewitness” to testify at trial; therefore, her recantation is
significant. This is false. The record shows Henry Jones also
testified at trial and identified [Appellant] as the shooter.6
According to police testimony at trial, no one spoke with Lucas at
the crime scene; rather, she approached a female officer, Lillian
Rosario, at the hospital and slipped her a note with [Appellant]
and Brown’s information on it. Lucas later gave two separate
detailed interviews to homicide detectives that night and identified
[Appellant], whom she had known since middle school, in a photo
array. Lucas told police she feared for her life and was receiving
threats of retaliation for cooperating with police[,] so she was
placed in protective housing prior to testifying. None of this
comports with her incredible new testimony that she was
somehow unwilling to cooperate and only did so a week after the
shooting when a detective made a secret deal with her regarding
her credit card fraud. Nor is it credible that she was extremely
drunk on the night of the shooting yet remembers all the details.
Likewise, her testimony that the argument over game winnings
- 15 -
J-S02002-21
that led to the shooting happened three hours before the actual
shooting is incredible. As stated above, recantation testimony,
particularly where a witness claims he or she committed perjury,
is considered extremely unreliable. Lucas’[s] testimony at the
evidentiary hearing was not credible and would not likely result in
a different verdict if a new trial were granted. Therefore, no relief
is due.
6 Jones gave police statements and testified at the
preliminary hearing that he saw [Appellant] shoot Gaillard.
Jones became afraid after receiving threats for testifying;
he was taken into custody and forced to appear at trial to
testify. At trial, he testified consistently with prior
statements except that he refused to say he actually
witnessed the shooting. The jury was aware of all of Jones’
testimony and prior statements and ultimately found
[Appellant] guilty of Gaillard’s murder.
PCO at 11-12, 14-15.
Notably, nothing in the PCRA court’s analysis dealt explicitly with the
newly-discovered fact exception with respect to Lucas’s new testimony,
despite the fact that satisfaction of a timeliness issue is a threshold inquiry
implicating the court’s jurisdiction. Instead, the court ascertained that
Appellant’s claim was barred as having been previously litigated under Section
9543(a)(3),6 reasoning that Appellant knew about Lucas’s criminal records
previously and had raised the same Brady claim in his third PCRA petition.
Arguably, this might suggest that the PCRA court had determined that Lucas’s
testimony was effectively the same evidence, and therefore, not newly-
____________________________________________
6 That provision dictates that, to “be eligible for relief under this subchapter,
the petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of
the following: … (3) That the allegation of error has not been previously
litigated or waived.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). Section 9544(a) defines when
an issue has been previously litigated for purposes of the PCRA.
- 16 -
J-S02002-21
discovered for purposes of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), but the PCRA court never
stated that explicitly in its opinion.
This is troubling because,
[t]he purpose behind a Rule 907 pre-dismissal notice is to allow a
petitioner an opportunity to seek leave to amend his petition and
correct any material defects, see Commonwealth v. Williams,
… 782 A.2d 517, 526 ([Pa.] 2001), the ultimate goal being to
permit merits review by the PCRA court of potentially arguable
claims. The response is an opportunity for a petitioner and/or his
counsel to object to the dismissal and alert the PCRA court of a
perceived error, permitting the court to “discern the potential for
amendment.” Id. at 527.
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Here, Appellant responded to the Rule 907 notice pro se,7 and
specifically requested the court consider his Brady claim based on Lucas’s
testimony at the PCRA hearing. See Appellant’s Pro Se Response to the PCRA
Court’s Rule 907 Notice, 4/29/19, at ¶¶ 1 et seq. (unnumbered pages).
Appellant was never notified that the PCRA court intended to deny any claim
on timeliness grounds or as having been previously litigated. Thus, he was
effectively denied the opportunity to seek leave to amend his petition to
correct those defects.
____________________________________________
7 It appears that prior PCRA counsel, Attorney Cooper, effectively abandoned
Appellant by this point in the procedural history of this case. We find no
evidence in the record of Attorney Cooper filing anything with the lower court
after he submitted the second amended petition, which, as discussed above,
was defective in several respects. Appellant filed a pro se response to the
Rule 907 notice, and a pro se notice of appeal, and was effectively deprived
of the assistance of counsel until current counsel entered his appearance with
this Court in November of 2019.
- 17 -
J-S02002-21
In any event, the specific Brady issue presented by Lucas’s new
testimony was not previously litigated. The interplay between Section
9543(a)(3)’s bar on previously-litigated claims and the newly-discovered fact
exception was explained by our Supreme Court as follows:
In this context, “issue” is “the discrete legal ground” that was
forwarded to the highest appellate court and which would have
entitled the defendant to relief. Commonwealth v. Collins, 888
A.2d 564, 570 (Pa. 2005). Although there can be many theories
and allegations in support of a single issue, Section 9544 refers to
the discrete legal ground already raised and decided. Id. An
issue is not previously litigated when it does not rely solely
upon previously litigated evidence. Commonwealth v.
Miller, 746 A.2d 592, 602 n.9 & 10 (Pa. 2000).
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 173 A.3d 617, 627 (Pa. 2017) (citations
reformatted, emphasis added).
Here, during the litigation of Appellant’s third PCRA petition, we
explained his prior Brady claim as follows:
Appellant’s alleged newly-discovered evidence consists of public
criminal records, which date back to 1990 and predate Appellant’s
trial. Appellant alleges that these criminal records show that
Commonwealth witness, Dana Lucas, had outstanding criminal
charges at the time she testified against Appellant. Appellant
asserts Lucas “received sweetheart leniency” in exchange for her
testimony against him and claims he was never made aware of
the charges or the alleged leniency agreement during trial. As
such, Appellant asserts the Commonwealth violated its duty to
turn over exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady and its
progeny.
Commonwealth v. Richardson, No. 3329 EDA 2011, unpublished
memorandum at 6 (Pa. Super. filed November 7, 2012) (citations and footnote
omitted).
- 18 -
J-S02002-21
Appellant’s current Brady claim is premised upon Lucas’s PCRA hearing
testimony, and not solely upon his prior discovery of Lucas’s public criminal
records, the at-issue evidence during Appellant’s litigation of his third PCRA
petition. Indeed, the mere inference from the records alone of an undisclosed
deal is a far cry from testimony to the same effect by a party to the
arrangement, assuming that testimony is credible. Accordingly, as the current
claim is not premised solely upon previously-litigated evidence or substantially
similar evidence, we conclude that the PCRA court erred when it determined
that Appellant’s claim was previously litigated.
Similarly, the record clearly establishes that Lucas’s testimony regarding
the promise of leniency is a newly-discovered fact for purposes of Section
9545(b)(1)(ii). Nothing in the record suggests that her admission of a deal
for leniency, or her general recantation of her trial testimony, were facts
previously known to Appellant before Lucas agreed to testify just days before
the PCRA hearing. Indeed, Lucas testified that she never told anyone about
the deal until that time. N.T., 7/5/18, at 33. Thus, the first prong of the
newly-discovered fact test was satisfied.
As to the due-diligence prong, we note that:
Due diligence demands the petitioner to take reasonable steps to
protect her own interests. Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d
1164 (Pa. Super. 2001). This standard, however, entails “neither
perfect vigilance nor punctilious care, but rather it requires
reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular
circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for
collateral relief.” Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063,
1071 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)…. Thus, “the due diligence
- 19 -
J-S02002-21
inquiry is fact-sensitive and dependent upon the circumstances
presented.” Id. at 1070.
Commonwealth v. Shiloh, 170 A.3d 553, 558 (Pa. Super. 2017).
As noted above, Lucas testified that, until just days before the PCRA
hearing, she had never told anyone that her trial testimony was false with
respect to either her identification of Appellant or the presence of a deal for
her testimony. N.T., 7/5/18, at 33. She also indicated that, years after the
trial, she was still fearful of retaliation for her testimony. Id. at 35. Only a
year before her PCRA court testimony, she indicated that someone had
messaged her on Facebook, asking her to “tell the truth.” Id. at 36. She did
not respond and, instead, she changed her Facebook account. Id. Ultimately,
upon overhearing a conversation about Appellant’s case a few days before the
hearing, she contacted the investigator working for Attorney Cooper. Id. at
38. Appellant testified that he never stopped searching for people who could
exonerate him since he was convicted. Id. at 148-49. However, he indicated
that he did not have an investigator to assist him for most of that time. Id.
at 148.
We conclude that there was adequate evidence presented through the
testimonies of Appellant and Lucas to establish that Appellant acted with due
diligence. Appellant indicated that he never stopped searching for witnesses
to exonerate him, and the procedural history of this case demonstrates that
Appellant has continually maintained his innocence and repeatedly filed PCRA
petitions seeking relief as new information became known to him. We note
that Appellant, incarcerated and indigent, did not have the wherewithal to
- 20 -
J-S02002-21
mount an extensive investigation over decades, and there is nothing in Lucas’s
testimony indicating that she would have come forward at an earlier time even
had Appellant contacted her. To the contrary, her testimony suggests that
she was fearful of retaliation for decades after she testified at Appellant’s trial,
and that she made no efforts to recant until, just days before the PCRA
hearing, she learned that an investigator was looking for her, and she then
contacted that investigator.
In any event, we would find it untenable and unreasonable to impose a
standard on PCRA petitioners that would require them to continually harass a
Commonwealth’s witness for decades after conviction in order satisfy the due
diligence requirement in the event that said witness eventually comes forward
to recant or provide new evidence, especially where, in the circumstances of
this case, Lucas had been placed in protective custody at the time of
Appellant’s trial, and was fearful of reprisal for her testimony. Accordingly,
we conclude that Lucas’s new admissions and recantation of her trial
testimony, at least facially (independent of credibility), would constitute
newly-discovered facts under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).
The PCRA court also determined that the Lucas-related after-discovered
evidence/Brady claim lacks merit, based on its determination that Lucas’s
new testimony would be unlikely to compel a new verdict, as the court found
her testimony incredible. However, because the judge making the relevant
credibility determination was not present during the hearing where Lucas’s
new testimony was heard, we cannot affirm the PCRA court’s denial of
- 21 -
J-S02002-21
Appellant’s PCRA petition on that basis and, instead, we find the most
appropriate course of action is to remand for further proceedings.
Our Supreme Court “has often acknowledged the limitations inherent in
recantation testimony,” see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Floyd, 484 A.2d 365,
369 (Pa. 1984) (characterizing recantation testimony as “extremely
unreliable”),” however, the Court never “foreclosed the possibility that, in
some instances, such testimony may be believed by the factfinder and[,]
thus[,] form a basis for relief.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167,
1180 (Pa. 1999) (citation reformatted). Thus, the mere fact that Lucas
recanted her prior testimony does not, as a matter of law, render her new
testimony incredible. At the same time, a
PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its
credibility determinations should be provided great deference by
reviewing courts. Indeed, one of the primary reasons PCRA
hearings are held in the first place is so that credibility
determinations can be made; otherwise, issues of material fact
could be decided on pleadings and affidavits alone.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 539 (Pa. 2009) (citations
omitted).
Consequently, our Supreme Court has also noted that,
[w]here appropriate, we have remanded matters involving after-
discovered evidence claims and specifically directed the trial or
PCRA court to make credibility determinations on recantation
testimony. For example, in Williams, the PCRA court failed to
make an independent determination as to the credibility of the
recanting witness. This Court noted the PCRA court, as fact-
finder, “is in a superior position to make the initial assessment of
the importance of [the recantation] testimony to the outcome of
the case,” and remanded with a direction for the PCRA court to
- 22 -
J-S02002-21
“render its own, independent findings of fact and conclusions of
law concerning [the recanting person’s] credibility and the impact,
if any, upon the truth-determining process which can be discerned
from such testimony.” [Williams,] 732 A.2d at 1181. Similarly,
in [Commonwealth v.] D’Amato, [856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004),]
the PCRA court failed to mention, let alone pass upon, the
credibility of the recantation testimony in its opinion. After holding
the PCRA court had defaulted on its duty to assess the credibility
of the recantation and its significance in light of the trial record,
this Court remanded the matter for the limited purpose of allowing
the PCRA court to make that determination. [D’Amato,] 856 A.2d
at 825-26.
Commonwealth v. Small, 189 A.3d 961, 978 (Pa. 2018).
Here, a different problem arises, as Judge Brinkley, currently sitting as
the PCRA court, made the relevant credibility assessment of Lucas’s testimony
as to the after-discovered evidence claim, but it was now-retired Judge Geroff
who heard that testimony at the PCRA hearing at which Lucas testified. In
Commonwealth ex rel. Davis v. Davis, 408 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. 1979), a
custody matter, a similar problem arose, where the custody hearing judge
“did not file an opinion in support of the custody orders. Rather a common
pleas judge, not the hearing judge, wrote the lower court’s opinion upholding
the hearing judge’s decision.” Davis, 408 A.2d at 850. The Davis Court
determined that this was improper, reasoning:
While we acknowledge the opinion was ably done, it should not
have been undertaken at all. The record discloses that there were
serious conflicts in the testimony of the appellant and the
appellee. The opinion[-]writing judge inadvertently misstated the
testimony of a principal witness called on behalf of the appellant.
Not uniquely peculiar to this case, the accepted facts and the
inferences that can be drawn from them depend on the credibility
of the testifying witnesses. This vital function can only be
determined by the judge before whom these witnesses
appear.
- 23 -
J-S02002-21
Id. (emphasis added). Additionally,
[t]he Pennsylvania Superior Court considered a similar situation
in the case of Hyman v. Borock, 235 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 1967),
and determined that in the absence of the parties’ consent, a court
may not substitute another judge for the trial judge where the
testimony has been heard without a jury and the trial judge has
not rendered a decision on the factual issues. Hyman was
followed in Ciaffoni v. Ford, 237 A.2d 250 (Pa. Super. 1968),
where the Superior Court considered a situation where the trial
judge had rendered a verdict, but subsequently recused himself.
The Superior Court determined that the substituted judge was not
entitled to rely upon the record made before the first judge in the
absence of evidence of consent from both parties.
Wasiolek v. City of Philadelphia, 606 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)
(citations reformatted).
This matter is most similar to Hyman, as Judge Geroff heard Lucas’s
testimony, but he did not rule on Lucas’s credibility, nor did he issue an order
granting or denying Appellant’s petition. Judge Brinkley made the relevant
credibility determination based on a cold reading of the record, and denied
Appellant’s petition on that basis, without having obtained consent from either
party. Accordingly, we conclude that the appropriate course of action is to
vacate the order denying relief, and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant may seek leave to amend his petition to perfect his claim, and Lucas
should be heard by the same judge who will ultimately assess her credibility.8
____________________________________________
8 Appellant may seek leave for recusal as well, as Judge Brinkley has already
rendered an opinion based on the cold record of the prior PCRA hearings.
However, we take no position on whether recusal should be granted at this
time, as it “is the individual judge who must in the first instance determine
whether in good conscience and judgment he or she can hear a dispute
- 24 -
J-S02002-21
III
Next, Appellant claims that the PCRA court erred when it determined
that neither Young’s nor Fiddeman’s testimony satisfied the newly-discovered
fact exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement. The PCRA court
determined that Appellant never pled in his petitions when he first learned of
these witnesses, and that he failed to act diligently in obtaining their
testimony. See PCO at 7-8.
Contrarily, Appellant argues that he
has exercise[d] extraordinary diligence throughout his post-
conviction litigation. He found Young and Fiddeman by
happenstance and acted swiftly once he became aware of their
existence. Because of his PCRA testimony that he was not aware
that these two men were present at the scene, he could not have
known to reach out to them before they contacted him. In other
words, no degree of diligence could have led to their discovery
any sooner than they were discovered.
Appellant’s Brief at 40.
We note, again, that the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice never mentioned
Appellant’s failure to meet a timeliness exception but, instead, indicated that
his claims related to Young and Fiddeman were denied on the merits.
However, as due diligence is a common element to both the newly-discovered
facts and after-discovered evidence standards, we will consider that aspect of
the PCRA court’s analysis.
With respect to Fiddeman, the PCRA court determined:
____________________________________________
objectively and impartially, or whether there should be a recusal.” Lomas v.
Kravitz, 130 A.3d 107, 124 (Pa. Super. 2015).
- 25 -
J-S02002-21
First, during his own testimony, [Appellant] admitted that he did
not file his petition within 60 days of learning about Fiddeman’s
account of the shooting. He testified that he met Fiddeman in
prison sometime in 2014[,] shortly after Fiddeman arrived there.
Fiddeman did not write his affidavit until February 2015;
[Appellant] did not file [the PCRA petition under review] until
March [of] 2015. The relevant date is when [Appellant] first
learned of the new facts, not when the witness signed an
affidavit/statement. Since Fiddeman arrived at SCI-Huntingdon
in January 2014 and testified that he met [Appellant] within weeks
thereafter, [Appellant] clearly did not present his claim within 60
days of learning Fiddeman’s alleged new information. Moreover,
Fiddeman testified that he and [Appellant] saw each other on the
night of the shooting during the dice game. [Appellant] does not
explain why he did not reach out to Fiddeman sooner if he knew
Fiddeman was present that night. In addition, Fiddeman testified
that he was the neighborhood drug dealer who always worked that
corner by Ike’s bar. Even if [Appellant] had not noticed Fiddeman
that night, [Appellant] provides no explanation as to why he did
not have an investigator seek out the regular corner drug dealers
in the area. Thus, [Appellant] has failed to show he exercised due
diligence with respect to Fiddeman.
PCO at 13.
We initially question the PCRA court’s assertion that due diligence
required Appellant to hire an investigator to “seek out the regular corner drug
dealers” for information about the shooting. The court provides no case law
in support of this view of due diligence, and we reject the notion that fishing
expeditions of that nature are reasonable in the context of a due diligence
analysis. Again, due diligence requires “neither perfect vigilance nor
punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based
on the particular circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for
collateral relief.” Burton, 121 A.3d at 1071. Seeking out every drug dealer
in the area who, by chance, may have witnessed the shooting, would demand
- 26 -
J-S02002-21
a tremendous amount of time and resources beyond what is typically available
to a defendant in a criminal case, whether indigent or not. The PCRA court’s
analysis would require ‘perfect vigilance,’ not reasonable efforts.
Nevertheless, the court also asserts that Appellant knew Fiddeman was
present at the scene of the shooting. If true, it would be reasonable to require
of Appellant some efforts to investigate Fiddeman. However, the court infers
this fact not from Appellant’s testimony, but from Fiddeman’s. Fiddeman
testified that he vaguely knew of Appellant at the time of the shooting, as they
both lived in the same neighborhood. See N.T., 7/2/18, at 107-08, 119.
Basically, he testified that he knew Appellant enough to say hello, but that
they were not close. During cross-examination, Fiddeman was questioned
about whether he interacted with Appellant just prior to the shooting:
Q[.] So prior to the shooting you had seen [Appellant] playing
dice?
A[.] Yes.
Q[.] And he had seen you as you walked over, as far as you could
tell?
MR. COOPER: Objection to that.
THE COURT: As far as you can tell. …
Q[.] As far as you could tell?
A[.] Yes.
Id. at 125.
- 27 -
J-S02002-21
This appears to be the only testimony by Fiddeman that could be the
basis of the PCRA court’s conclusion that Appellant saw Fiddeman at the scene,
as Fiddeman indicated that he believed that Appellant had seen him that day,
as far as he could tell. Although the district attorney attempted to elicit
from Fiddeman that there was an interaction between the two, Fiddeman
essentially testified that he may have said hello to some people playing dice,
but he did not recount any specific interaction with Appellant. Appellant
testified that he knew Fiddeman from the neighborhood, but that he did not
see him on the night of the shooting. N.T., 7/5/18, at 107.
It is not immediately apparent that this testimony is truly incompatible.
It is possible that Appellant did not notice Fiddeman, despite Fiddeman’s
believing that he had. In any event, the PCRA court’s basis for denying relief
again turns on questions of credibility. For the same reasons set forth above
with respect to Appellant’s Lucas-related claim, we cannot affirm the denial of
the petition based on a credibility determination made by a judge who did not
hear the testimony of the two witnesses in question.
The PCRA court’s conclusion that Appellant failed to satisfy Section
9545(b)(2)’s 60-day rule suffers from the same malady, as that issue also
turns on a credibility analysis of the testimony of Appellant and Fiddeman.
Fiddeman did not immediately speak to Appellant upon his arrival at SCI-
Huntington. He came into contact with Appellant through a third party, Reik.
Q[.] How long had you been up at Huntingdon before you talked
to this fellow that you described as Reik? How long had you been
up there approximately?
- 28 -
J-S02002-21
A[.] Probably say about like a couple weeks when I ran into him
and I’d seen him and would talk in the yard and things of that
nature.
N.T., 7/2/18, at 100. There is no indication in the record when Reik and
Fiddeman began speaking about Appellant’s case. Reik ultimately facilitated
a meeting between Fiddeman and Appellant, but it is also not clear whether
Fiddeman immediately told Appellant what he knew, or whether he revealed
his knowledge after a period of time.
Fiddeman dated the affidavit February 19, 2015, and gave it to
Appellant. Id. at 95. Appellant filed the instant petition on March 20, 2015,
citing Fiddeman as a witness. If Appellant did not learn of the new facts until
he received the affidavit, he clearly satisfied the 60-day rule. However, the
PCRA court found that Appellant must have known about the new facts before
February 19, 2015, because Appellant and Fiddeman both testified that they
spoke about the matter before Fiddeman wrote the affidavit. However, the
record does not demonstrate when the fact was made known to Appellant.
The testimony provided suggests that date could have fallen inside or outside
the 60-day rule’s limits. Fiddeman could not recall the date on which he first
discussed Appellant’s case with him. Id. at 121. He did say that several
months had passed from when he first learned from Reik that Appellant was
at SCI-Huntington, and when he ultimately wrote the affidavit. Id. at 123.
When questioned on cross-examination, Appellant denied that he had learned
- 29 -
J-S02002-21
the new facts from Fiddeman as early as mid-2014. N.T., 7/5/18, at 144.9
When asked if he filed his petition within 60 days of learning the new facts
from Fiddeman, he indicated that he had. Id. at 154.
The record simply does not establish a precise date of when Fiddeman
first told Appellant that he had witnessed Hasan’s shooting the victim.
Appellant indicated that he filed his petition within 60 days of learning of that
fact. Fiddeman’s testimony could be read to support or conflict with that
testimony, depending on what part, if any, the court deemed credible. Thus,
credibility, again, was a crucial factor in determining whether Fiddeman’s new
facts satisfied Section 9545(b)(2) and, as stated above, the judge assessing
credibility in this instance was not the judge who heard the witnesses.
Moreover, Appellant was never afforded any opportunity to perfect his petition
in this regard, as the court’s Rule 907 notice indicated only that the petition
was being denied on the merits, not that it failed to satisfy a timeliness
exception, or the dictates of Section 9545(b)(2), with respect to the new facts
presented by Fiddeman. Accordingly, we conclude that a remand is also
appropriate with respect to the new facts presented by Fiddeman’s affidavit.
Young also testified at the PCRA hearing to the new fact that he saw
Hasan, not Appellant, shoot the victim. PCO at 10. Young wrote a letter
____________________________________________
9 During this line of questioning, the Commonwealth suggested that Fiddeman
arrived at the facility on or about June 24, 2014, but there is no evidence of
record establishing that date to be correct. Id. at 142. Appellant did not
dispute that timeline, and he stated that he first met with Fiddeman sometime
in 2014. Id.
- 30 -
J-S02002-21
indicating this new fact to Appellant on February 27, 2015, eight days after
Appellant received Fiddeman’s affidavit, prompting a meeting. N.T., 7/2/18,
at 26-27. Assuming the letter conveyed to Appellant this new fact for the
first time, Young’s new fact satisfies the 60-day rule, as he filed his petition in
the following month.
Nevertheless, the PCRA court determined that Appellant did not act
diligently with respect to this new fact, providing the following cursory
analysis:
[Appellant] has also failed to demonstrate due diligence with
respect to Young. [Appellant] would have this [c]ourt believe that
Young’s letter exonerating [Appellant] serendipitously arrived the
week after Fiddeman decided to prepare an affidavit. However,
[Appellant] admitted that he knew Young, who grew up in the
neighborhood and whose grandmother lived near the bar, [and
who testified that he] had been trying to contact [Appellant] for
years. Young testified that he had been attempting to contact
[Appellant] since 2010[,] and had even provided his phone
number to a mutual friend. [Appellant] failed to show that he
exercised any due diligence when he failed reach out to Young to
learn why he wanted to speak to him.
PCO at 13-14.
Again, the PCRA court’s due diligence analysis turns on its assessment
of the witnesses’ credibility. Moreover, even though Appellant knew of
Young’s attempts to contact him, that does not mean Appellant also knew, or
even should have suspected, that those attempted communications would be
related to his conviction. Young stated on cross-examination that he gave
out his phone number to “certain people” as early as 2010, “hoping that I
would get a phone call. It was during that time. That’s the only thing I ever
- 31 -
J-S02002-21
did.” N.T., 7/2/18, at 60. He did not identify to whom he gave his number,
nor what information he passed along at that time. Appellant testified that he
was aware that Young was attempting to reach out to him, but that he did not
know why until he received the letter. N.T., 7/5/18, at 111-12. Nothing of
record indicates why Appellant would know that Young was a potential
exonerating witness before he received the letter. Nevertheless, because the
witnesses’ credibility must be analyzed to establish whether Appellant acted
diligently, and because the PCRA court did not hear that testimony in the first
instance, we reject the PCRA court’s conclusion that Appellant failed to act
diligently with respect to the new facts presented by Young.
Finally, the PCRA court determined that neither Fiddeman’s nor Young’s
testimony ultimately satisfy the prejudice prong of the after-discovered
evidence test. The court stated that Appellant
fails to satisfy the prejudice prong as he did not successfully plead
and prove that the outcome of the trial would have been different
with this “new” evidence. Both Young and Fiddeman’s accounts
from the night of the shooting are highly suspect, particularly
since Fiddeman is a fellow inmate at SCI-Huntingdon.
PCO at 15.
This incredibly short analysis also relied solely on a rejection of the
credibility of Young and Fiddeman. Thus, as above, we conclude that the PCRA
court was not able to judge the credibility of these witnesses when their
testimony was heard by a different judge. For the same reason, we cannot
accept the court’s conclusion that a jury would not have been swayed by their
testimony.
- 32 -
J-S02002-21
Accordingly, given the defects in the PCRA court’s rejection of
Appellant’s petition as detailed herein, we vacate the order denying
Appellant’s PCRA petition, and remand for further proceedings. Upon remand,
we instruct the PCRA court to issue an order granting Appellant 60 days to
seek leave to amend his petition to correct, if possible, the defects identified
by the court in his petition for which he was given no prior notice. Any issues
of material fact or credibility, whether relevant to a timeliness exception or
the merits of the underlying claims, should then be resolved at a new hearing.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Nichols joins this memorandum.
Judge Kunselman concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/3/21
- 33 -