Commonwealth v. Brown, J.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 149 WAL 2023
:
Respondent : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
: from the Unpublished Memorandum
: and Order of the Superior Court at
v. : No. 17 WDA 2022 entered on
: March 15, 2023, affirming, vacating
: and remanding the PCRA Order of
JAMIE M. BROWN, : the Beaver County Court of
: Common Pleas at No. CP-04-
Petitioner : CR-0000913-2001 entered on
: December 15, 2021
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal
is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED in part, and the case is
REMANDED to the Superior Court for its consideration of an outstanding claim. In
affirming the PCRA court’s order with respect to Petitioner Jamie M. Brown’s (“Brown”)
Brady claim, due to his failure to provide a date certain for when he first learned of the
existence of the Brady evidence, the Superior Court did so based on a defect not identified
in the PCRA court’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice. Thus, Brown was not afforded the
opportunity to amend his petition to correct that defect as contemplated under
Pa.R.Crim.P. 905.
Rule 905 “indicates the desire of this Court to provide PCRA petitioners with a
legitimate opportunity to present their claims to the PCRA court in a manner sufficient to
avoid dismissal due to a correctable defect in claim pleading or presentation.”
Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014, 1024 (Pa. 2003). Rule 905 states that when
“a petition for post-conviction collateral relief is defective as originally filed, the judge shall
order amendment of the petition, indicate the nature of the defects, and specify the time
within which an amended petition shall be filed.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(B) (emphasis added).
The range of defects that Rule 905(B) contemplates includes
petitions that are inadequate, insufficient, or irregular for any
reason; for example, petitions that lack particularity;
petitions that do not comply substantially with Rule 902;
petitions that appear to be patently frivolous; petitions that
do not allege facts that would support relief; petitions that
raise issues the defendant did not preserve properly or were
finally determined at prior proceedings.
Pa.R.Crim.P.905, Comment (emphasis added).
The Superior Court majority affirmed the PCRA court's order denying relief with
respect to Brown’s Brady claim solely on the grounds that he failed to include the date on
which he learned of the existence of the at-issue Brady evidence—a statement by
Anthony Dorsett implicating another culprit—during a conversation with Travon Dawkins.
Brown’s PCRA counsel subsequently obtained and then proffered Dorsett’s statement in
the petition under review. Due to that defect, the majority determined that Brown failed
to satisfy 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2), which requires that any “petition invoking an exception”
to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements “shall be filed within one year of the date the claim
could have been presented.” However, that defect was not the basis of the PCRA court's
decision to deny the petition and was not identified in the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice.
Consequently, the Superior Court erred insofar as it denied relief where Brown never had
an opportunity to amend his petition to correct the defect. See Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 947 A.2d 710, 711 (Pa. 2008) (per curiam) (granting, vacating, and remanding
to the PCRA court to allow Robinson the opportunity to amend his petition to correct a
defect not cited in the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice).
[149 WAL 2023] - 2
Because the Superior Court failed to address the actual basis upon which the
PCRA court denied relief with respect to that claim (the reasons provided in the PCRA
court’s Rule 907 notice), we grant Brown’s petition for allowance of appeal, vacate the
Superior Court’s order solely with respect to its resolution of the Brady claim pertaining to
Dorsett’s statement, and remand to the Superior Court for it to address the PCRA court’s
reasons for ruling on that claim. In the event the PCRA court’s reasons are rejected,
Petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to amend his petition to address the defect
identified by the Superior Court. In all other respects, the Superior Court’s order is
affirmed.
[149 WAL 2023] - 3