Com. v. Holloway, R. ( 2016 )

J-S40007-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROY HOLLOWAY
Appellant No. 3359 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1007581-1977
BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY AND MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED JUNE 08, 2016
Roy Holloway appeals from the denial of his fifth petition seeking post-
conviction relief. We affirm.
On December 6, 1978, a jury convicted Appellant of first degree
murder, conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime. On February
13, 1975, Appellant shot and killed Hattie Jones when she was unable to
satisfy a debt. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, which was
affirmed. Commonwealth v. Holloway, 425 A.2d 741 (Pa. 1981).
Appellant was denied relief under the now-repealed Post Conviction Hearing
Act, and we affirmed. Commonwealth v. Holloway, 505 A.2d 1032(Pa.Super. 1985) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant then filed three
PCRA petitions. On appeal from the denial of the third one, we concluded
J-S40007-16
that it was untimely. Commonwealth v. Holloway, 739 A.2d 587(Pa.Super. 1999) (unpublished memorandum).
Appellant filed the present PCRA petition on May 13, 2015. It was
dismissed as untimely, and, on appeal, Appellant invokes the newly
discovered facts exception to the one-year time bar. Appellant’s brief at 4.
Our “standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049, 1052 (Pa.Super. 2015). A
defendant’s claim falls within the newly discovered facts exception when he
“can establish that the facts upon which his claim is predicated were
unknown to him and could not have been discovered through the exercise of
due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 984 (Pa. 2011).
Herein, Appellant’s newly discovered facts are that: 1) the trial court did not
administer an oath to a witness; and 2) the trial court failed to certify
transcripts.
We agree with the PCRA court that Appellant failed to establish that he
was duly diligent in discovering these facts regarding the state of the record,
which has been in existence for over thirty-seven years. We affirm based on
the well-reasoned December 1, 2015 opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey P.
Minehart.
Order affirmed.
-2-
J-S40007-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/8/2016
-3-