Opinion

Com. v. Delarosa, R.

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: Jun 28, 2024
Status: Unpublished
On the bench: Olson, J.
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 30.0%

The opinion

J-S15003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

RAUL DELAROSA :

Appellant : No. 2188 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 3, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2024

Appellant, Raul DeLarosa, appeals from the order entered on August 3,

2023, which denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

On January 22, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to

third-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation.1 During

the plea colloquy, Appellant admitted to the following:

[In] June [] 2010, [Appellant] requested the assistance of

[co-defendant Hector Rivera] . . . to assist him in the killing

of the victim in this case, Candido Hidalgo [(“the Victim”)].

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, and 902(a), respectively.

J-S15003-24

Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another [co-defendant] in this

case by the name of Jose Padilla . . . to also assist in the

killing of [the Victim].

On . . . [June 13, 2010], with the assistance of [Appellant],

Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives[,] waited

in the back of [the Victim’s Philadelphia] property. . . . Mr.

Rivera and Mr. Padilla waited . . . between 3:00 a.m. and

4:00 a.m. on that date . . . [and] when the [Victim] . . .

arrived home, they attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly

with knives. And they stabbed him in the area of the face,

the neck, the hands, and the chest.

Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location. Police and medics

were called by [the Victim’s] wife and daughter who were

home at the time. Medics arrived and pronounced [the

Victim] dead at 4:07 a.m.

[The Victim’s] body was transported to the Medical

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by

forensic pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that

the cause of [the Victim’s] death was multiple stab and incise

wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.

Subsequent to the killing of [the Victim, Appellant] did make

arrangements to pay Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of

dollars for their assistance in the killing of [the Victim.

Appellant] fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the

murder and had to be extradited back here to be here for this

trial.

...

[The] evidence would show that [Appellant and the Victim]

were involved in a drug dealing business together. They were

transporting large quantities of drugs from Mexico

throughout the East Coast.

N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/22/18, at 20-22.

On February 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the

negotiated, aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison for his convictions.

-2-

J-S15003-24

N.T. Sentencing, 2/20/18, at 19. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of

sentence on January 31, 2019. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 209 A.3d 543

(Pa. Super. 2019) (non-precedential decision).

On March 26, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and

the PCRA court later appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the

proceedings. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s first PCRA petition on

August 12, 2019 and we affirmed the PCRA court’s order on December 14,

2020. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 245 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(non-precedential decision).

On May 1, 2023, Appellant filed the current PCRA petition, which

constitutes Appellant’s second petition for post-conviction collateral relief

under the PCRA. Within the petition, Appellant claimed:

On November 20, 2022, while at the prison library, the law

clerk provided [Appellant] with a copy of a publication titled

Right To Be Free, which documented an extensive list of

Philadelphia Police Officers who had been “accused, charged,

convicted, and/or disciplined for alleged actions of

misconduct.”

With the assistance of the law clerk, the names of these police

officers were compared to the few pages of the discovery file

[Appellant] has in his possession. This search revealed the

following officers accused or convicted of misconduct were

also involved in the investigation of [Appellant’s] case: “John

Verrecchio, Ohmarr Jenkins, Thomas Gaul, Angela Gaines,

Ronald Jenkins, Philip Nordo, Carl Watkins,” and “Holmes.”

On February 12, 2023, [Appellant] received (from the

prison’s law clerk) what he believes to be portions of Officer

Nordo’s disciplinary file that the law clerk obtained from

another prisoner. This information, which was never

disclosed to defense counsel, reveals that Officer Nordo had

-3-

J-S15003-24

committed instances of police misconduct before

[Appellant’s] arrest, and was suspended or under

investigation at the time of [Appellant’s] guilty plea.

[Appellant] submits that[] Hector Rivera, the only witness

linking him to this crime[,] was interviewed by [officers]

Nordo, Verrecchio, and Gaul. At this interview, Rivera

allegedly confessed to committing the murder ordered by

[Appellant], and set in motion via a phone call.

In an August 5, 2014 sworn affidavit, based on this interview,

Officer Verrecchio claimed to be in possession of phone

records linking a call from [Appellant] to Rivera at the time

of the murder. These phone records, however, cannot be

located. While [Appellant] knew he did not call Rivera when

he pled guilty, his attorney told him the police had records

that demonstrate a call was made. Had [Appellant] known

at the time of his guilty plea that Officer Verrecchio was

dishonest, he would not have accepted his attorney’s word

that such phone records existed, and further, rejected the

Commonwealth’s offer to plead guilty.

Appellant’s Second PCRA Petition, 5/1/23, at 1-3 (citations and numbering

omitted).

According to Appellant, even though his PCRA petition was facially

untimely, his claims fell within the newly-discovered fact and governmental

interference exceptions to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar. Appellant requested

that the PCRA court “vacate his conviction, allow him to withdraw his guilty

plea, and invoke his right to a jury trial.” Id. at 3.

On May 17, 2023, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice that it

intended to dismiss his petition in 20 days, without holding a hearing, as the

petition was untimely. PCRA Court Notice, 5/17/23, at 1; see also

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant responded to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice

with an amended petition that expounded upon his original claims. See

-4-

J-S15003-24

Appellant’s Rule 907 Response, 7/10/23, at 1-29. The PCRA court finally

dismissed Appellant’s second PCRA petition on August 3, 2023 and Appellant

filed a timely notice of appeal. See PCRA Court Order, 8/3/23, at 1. Appellant

raises the following claims on appeal:

1. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his claim that his

PCRA filings below, within [one] year of his discovery of

evidence revealing the homicide detectives in his case

engaged in serious misconduct, satisfied the jurisdictional

requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and (ii)?

2. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his Brady[2] claim

where, after pleading guilty and petitioning to withdraw [his]

plea, Appellant presented evidence suppressed by the

Commonwealth, revealing that both the Commonwealth and

trial court knew that the homicide detectives in his case were

engaging in serious misconduct which if disclosed, would

have resulted in Appellant’s rejection of the Commonwealth’s

plea offer?

3. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his after-discovered

evidence claim where, after pleading guilty, Appellant

presented evidence – suppressed by the Commonwealth –

after being alerted to and diligently searching for such

evidence, revealing that all homicide detectives in his case,

including the affiant himself, engaged in misconduct that

included falsifying witness statements to support affidavits of

probable cause?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Barbara

A. McDermott. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case,

____________________________________________

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

-5-

J-S15003-24

for the reasons expressed in Judge McDermott’s August 3, 2023 opinion.

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge McDermott’s opinion and adopt it

as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this

ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge McDermott’s August 3,

2023 opinion.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 6/28/2024

-6-

Circulated 05/17/2024 03:36 PM

IN THE

IN THE COURT

COURT OF

OF COMMON

COMMON PLEAS

PLEAS

FIRST JUDICIAL

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DISTRICT OF

OF PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL TRIAL

CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

DIVISION

COMMONWEAL TH OF

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

v. FILED

..,,

ALIE 00 33 2023

RAUL

RAUL DELAROSA

DELAROSA

PCRA Unit

CP Criminal Listings

ORDER AND

ORDER AND OPINION

OPINION

McDermott, J.

McDermott, J. August 3, 2023

August 3, 2023

Procedural

Procedural History

History

On March 10, 2017,

March 10, the Petitioner,

2017, the Petitioner, Raul

Raul Delarosa,

Delarosa, was

was arrested

arrested and

and charged

charged with

with Murder

Murder

and

and related

related offenses. On January

offenses. On 22, 2018,

January 22, the Petitioner

2018, the Petitioner appeared

appeared before

before this

this Court

Court and

and entered

entered

into

into aa negotiated to Third-Degree

plea to

guilty plea

negotiated guilty Third-Degree Murder,

Murder, Conspiracy

Conspiracy to

to Commit

Commit Murder,

Murder, and

and

Criminal

Criminal Solicitation of Murder,

Solicitation of Murder, At

At the

the Defendant's

Defendant's request,

request, sentencing

sentencing was

was deferred.

deferred. On

February 13,

February 13, 2018, the Petitioner

2018, the Petitioner filed

filed aa Motion

Motion to

to Withdraw

Withdraw his

his Guilty

Guilty Plea.

Plea. Following

Following aa

hearing on

hearing on February 20, 2018,

February 20, 2018, this

this Court

Court denied

denied his

his Motion. That same

Motion. That same day,

day, this

this Court

Court imposed

imposed

the

the negotiated

negotiated penalties of fifteen

penalties of fifteen to

to thirty

thirty years

years of

of imprisonment for Third-Degree

imprisonment for Third-Degree Murder,

Murder, and

and

concurrent

concurrent sentences of fifteen

sentences of fifteen to

to thirty

thirty years of imprisonment

years of for Conspiracy

imprisonment for Conspiracy to

to Commit

Commit

Murder

Murder and

and Criminal Solicitation of

Criminal Solicitation of Murder,

Murder, for

for aa total

total sentence

sentence of

of fifteen

fifteen to

to thirty years of

thirty years of

imprisonment.'

The

The remaining

remaining charges were nolle

charges were nolle prossed

prossed

The Petitioner

The Petitioner appealed, and on

appealed, and on January 31, 2019,

January 31, 2019, the

the Superior

Superior Court

Court of

of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

affirmed his

affirmed his judgment of sentence,

judgment of sentence, The

The Petitioner

Petitioner did

did not

not file

file aa Petition

Petition for

for Allowance

Allowance of

of Appeal

Appeal

with the

with the Supreme Court of

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania.

On March

On March 26,

26, 2019,

2019, the

the Petitioner

Petitioner filed

filed aa timely prose Post-Conviction

timely prose Post-Conviction Relief

Relief Act

Act

his first.

petition, his

("PCRA") petition,

("PCRA") On May

first. On 20, 2019,

May 20, 2019, court-appointed counsel filed

PCRA counsel

court-appointed PCRA no-merit

filed aa no-merit

letter pursuant

letter pursuant to Commonwealth ». Finley,

to Commonwealth Finley, 550

550 A.2d

A.2d 213

213 (Pa. Super. 1988)

(Pa. Super. (en bane).

1988) (en bane). On

On May

May

30, 2019,

30, 2019, after Grazier hearing,

after aa Grazier hearing, this Court permitted

this Court counsel to

permitted counsel to withdraw,

withdraw, allowed

allowed the

the

Petitioner to

Petitioner to proceed se, and

pro se,

proceed pro and determined

determined that

that an

an evidentiary hearing was

evidentiary hearing was necessary.'

necessary.' After

After an

on August

hearing on

evidentiary hearing

evidentiary August 12, 2019, this

12, 2019, this Court

Court dismissed

dismissed the

the petition.

petition. After

After appellate

appellate

counsel was

counsel was appointed", the Petitioner

appointed", the Petitioner appealed, and the

appealed, and the Superior

Superior Court

Court of

of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

affirmed this

affirmed this Courts

Courts dismissal

dismissal on

on December

December 14,

14, 2020.

2020. The Petitioner

Petitioner did

did not

not file

file aa Petition

Petition for

for

Allowance of

Allowance of Appeal.

Appeal.

On May

On 1, 2023,

May 1, 2023, the Petitioner

Petitioner filed

filed the

the instant

instant pro se PCRA

pro se petition, his

PCRA petition, his second,

second, On

17, 2023,

May 17,

May 2023, this

this Court

Court issued

issued aa Notice

Notice of

of Intent

Intent to

to Dismiss

Dismiss pursuant

pursuant to

to Pa.R.Crim,P.

Pa.R.Crim,P. 907.

907. On

June 5,

June 2023, this

5, 2023, this Court

Court granted the Petitioner's

granted the Petitioner's Motion

Motion for

for Extension

Extension of

of Time

Time to

to File

File aa 907

907

and directed

Response and

Response directed him

him to file aa Response

to file no later

Response no later than

than July

July 6,

6, 2023.

2023. On

On July

July 10,

10, 2023,

2023, the

the

Petitioner filed

Petitioner filed an

an untimely

untimely 907 Response

907 Response

On January

On 22, 2018,

January 22, 2018, the

the Petitioner

Petitioner admitted

admitted his

his guilt to the

guilt to the following

following facts:

facts:

[I]n June

[I]n June of2010,

of2010, [the

[the Petitioner],

Petitioner], Raul

Raul Delarosa,

Delarosa, also

also known

known

as Javier

as Javier Cepeda, also known

Cepeda, also known as as Edwin

Edwin Pichardo,

Pichardo, requested the

requested the

assistance of

assistance of aa codefendant

codefendant inin this

this case,

case, Hector

Hector Rivera,

Rivera, PID

PID No.

No.

Comuomwealth •

Comuomwealth • Grazier,

Grazier, 713

713 A.2d

A.2d 81

81 (Pa.

(Pa. 1998).

1998).

'' At

At the Grazier hearing,

the Grazier this Court

hearing, this Court noted

noted that it had

that it had not

not yet received the

yet received the Finley

Finley letter, but found

letter, but found that an

an evidentiary

evidentiary

hearing was

hearing was necessary to address

necessary to address Petitioner's

Petitioner's allegations

allegations of

of plea counsel's ineffectiveness

plea counsel's ineffectiveness inin connection

connection with

with the

the

of his

entry of

entry his guilty plea.

guilty plea.

'At the

'At the conclusion

conclusion of

of the

the evidentiary hearing, the

evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner

Petitioner requested that counsel

requested that counsel be

be appointed

appointed for

for his

his appeal.

appeal.

974687. He

974687. He asked

asked Mr.

Mr. Rivera

Rivera to

to assist

assist him

him in

in the

the killing

killing of

of the

the

in this

[decedent] in

[decedent] this case,

case, Candido

Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo.

Hector Rivera,

Hector Rivera, in

in turn, asked another

turn, asked another codefendant

codefendant in

in this

this case

case

the name

by the

by name of

of Jose

Jose Padilla,

Padilla, PID

PID No.

No. 946658,

946658, to

to also

also assist

assist in

in the

the

killing of

killing of Mr. Candido

Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo.

On the

On the date

date of...

of... June

June 13th

13th of

of 2010,

2010, with

with the

the assistance

assistance of[the

of[the

Hector Rivera

Petitioner], Hector

Petitioner], Rivera and

and Jose

Jose Padilla,

Padilla, armed

armed with knives

with knives

waited in

waited in the

the back

back of

of [the

[the decedent]'s

decedent]'s property, which is

property, which is located

located at

6120 Cottage

6120 Cottage Street in Philadelphia.

Street in Rivera and

Mr. Rivera

Philadelphia. Mr. and Mr.

Mr. Padilla

Padilla

waited at

waited at approximately between 3:00

approximately between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00

a.m. and 4:00 a.m.

a.m. onon that

that

date, June

date, June 13,

13, 2010.

2010. And

And when

when the

the [decedent] arrived home,

[decedent] arrived home, they

they

attacked him

attacked him and

and stabbed

stabbed him

him repeatedly with knives.

repeatedly with knives. And

And they

they

stabbed him

stabbed him in

in the

the area

area of

of the

the face,

face, the

the neck,

neck, the

the hands,

hands, and

and the

the

chest.

Mr. Rivera

Mr. Rivera and

and Mr.

Mr. Padilla

Padilla fled

fled the

the location,

location, Police

Police and

and medics

medics

were called

were called by

by [the

[the decedent]'s wife and

decedent]'s wife and daughter

daughter who

who were

were home

home

at the

at the time,

time, Medics

Medics arrived

arrived and

and pronounced [the decedent]

pronounced [the decedent] dead

dead at

4:07 a.m.

decedent]'s body

[The decedent]'s was transported

body was to the

transported to the Medical

Medical

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic

forensic

Dr. Aaron

pathologist Dr.

pathologist Aaron Rosen,

Rosen, who

who determined

determined that

that the

the cause

cause of

[the decedent]'s

[the decedent]'s death was multiple

death was multiple stab

stab and

and incise

incise wounds,

wounds, and

and

that the manner

that the manner of

of death was homicide.

death was homicide.

to the

Subsequent to

Subsequent the killing of [the decedent],

killing of decedent], [the

[the Petitioner]

Petitioner] did

did

make arrangements

make arrangements to to pay Rivera and

pay Mr, Rivera and Mr. Padilla

Padilla thousands

thousands of

dollars for

dollars for their

their assistance

assistance in

in the

the killing

killing of

of Candido

Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo. [The

[The

Petitioner} fled

Petitioner} fled to

to the

the Dominican Republic shortly

Dominican Republic after the

shortly after the murder

murder

and had

and had to

to be

be extradited

extradited back

back here

here to

to be

be here

here for

for this

this trial.

trial.

[The Petitioner]

[The and [the

Petitioner] and [the decedent] were involved

decedent] were involved in

in aa drug

drug

business together...

dealing business

dealing together... transporting

transporting large

large quantities

quantities of drugs

of drugs

from Mexico

from Mexico throughout

throughout the

the East

East Coast.

Coast.

N.T. 1/22/2018

N.T. at 20-21.

1/22/2018 at 20-21.

Discussion

In his

In his second

second PCRA

PCRA petition, the Petitioner

petition, the Petitioner raises

raises one

one claim

claim for

for review,

review, alleging

alleging that

that the

the

Commonwealth committed

Commonwealth Brady? violation

committed aa Brady? violation by failing to disclose

failing to disclose allegations

allegations of

of misconduct

misconduct

•• Brady

Brady ». Maryland,

Maryland, 373 U.$. 83

373 U.$. 83 (1963)

(1963)

-----

Detectives John

against Detectives

against Verrecchio, Phillip

John Verrecchio, Phillip Nordo,

Nordo, Thomas

Thomas Gaul,

Gaul, Ohmarr

Ohmarr Jenkins,

Jenkins, Angela

Angela

Gaines, Ronald

Gaines, Ronald Jenkins,

Jenkins, Carl

Carl Watkins,

Watkins, and

and Holmes°

Holmes° in

in other

other cases.

cases.

A PCRA

A PCRA petition, including aa second

petition, including second or

or subsequent petition, must

subsequent petition, must be

be filed

filed within

within one

one

year of

year of the

the date

date that

that the

the judgment

judgment of

of sentence

sentence becomes

becomes final.

final. 42 Pa.C,S. 88 9545(b)(1).

42 Pa.C,S. 9545(b)(1). "[A]

"[A]

becomes final

judgment becomes

judgment final at

at the

the conclusion

conclusion of

of direct

direct review,

review, including

including discretionary

discretionary review

review in

in the

the

Court of

Supreme Court

Supreme of the

the United

United States

States and

and the

the Supreme Court of

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at

Pennsylvania, or at the

the expiration

expiration

of time

of time for

for seeking the review.

seeking the review. Commomwealth

Commomwealth ». Nedab, 195

». Nedab, 195 A.3d

A.3d 957,

957, 960

960 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2018);

2018);

42 Pa.CS. $$ 9545(b)(3).

42 Pa.CS. A final

9545(b)(3). A final order

order of

of the

the Superior Court is

Superior Court is any

any order

order that

that concludes

concludes an

and aa Petition

appeal, and

appeal, Petition for

for Allowance

Allowance of

of Appeal with the

Appeal with the Supreme Court of

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania must

must be

filed within

filed within thirty

thirty days

days after

after the

the entry

entry of

of the

the Superior

Superior Court

Court Order.

Order. Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P. 1112;

1112; Pa.R.A.P.

Pa.R.A.P.

1113.

The time

The time requirement

requirement is

is mandatory

mandatory and

and jurisdictional

jurisdictional in

in nature,

nature, and

and aa trial

trial court

court cannot

cannot

ignore it in

ignore it in order

order to

to reach

reach aa petition's Commonwealth v.

merits. Commonwealth

petition's merits. v. Cox,

Cox, 146

146 A.3d

A.3d 221,

221, 227

227 (Pa.

(Pa.

2016) citing Commonwealth

2016) ((citing Commonwealth v,

v, .Jones,

.Jones, 54

54 A.3d

A.3d 14,

14, 16

16 (Pa.

(Pa. 2012)). An untimely

2012)). An untimely petition renders

petition renders

the court

the court without

without jurisdiction

jurisdiction to

to afford

afford relief. Commonwealth •

relief. Commonwealth • Spotz, 171 A.3d

Spotz, 171 A.3d 675,

675, 678

678 (Pa.

(Pa.

2017),

The instant

The instant petition

petition is

is facially

facially untimely.

untimely. The

The Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed

Superior Court affirmed this

this

Court's Judgment

Court's Judgment of

of Sentence

Sentence on

on January

January 31,

31, 2019.

2019. Therefore,

Therefore, the

the instant

instant conviction

conviction became

became

final on

final on March

March 3,

3, 2019,

2019, when

when the

the thirty-day

thirty-day period seek aa Petition

to seek

period to for Allowance

Petition for Allowance of

of Appeal

Appeal

with the

with the Supreme

Supreme Court

Court of

of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania expired.

expired. Petitioner

Petitioner had

had until

until March

March 3, 2020 to

3, 2020 to file

file aa

timely petition.

timely petition. The

The instant

instant petition

petition was

was filed

filed on

on May

May 1,

1, 2023,

2023, three

three years, one month,

years, one and

month, and

twenty-eight days

twenty-eight days after

after the

the period

period to

to seek

seek review

review expired

expired

·The Petitioner

·The Petitioner did

did not

not provide

provide aa first

first name

name for

for Detective

Detective Holmes.

Holmes.

A PCRA

A PCRA court

court has

has jurisdiction to review

jurisdiction to review collateral

collateral claims

claims filed

filed beyond

beyond the

the one-year limit

one-year limit

if aa petitioner

if and proves

alleges and

petitioner alleges proves any of the

any of the three

three limited

limited exceptions

exceptions under

under 42

42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. §

9545(b)(16-():

the failure

() the

() to raise

failure to raise the

the claim

claim previously

previously was the result

was the result of

interference by

interference by government officials with

government officials with the

the presentation

presentation of the

of the

claim in

claim in violation

violation of

of the

the Constitution

Constitution oror laws

laws of

of this

this

Commonwealth or

Commonwealth or the Constitution

Constitution oror laws

laws of

of the

the United

United States;

States;

the facts

(ii) the

(ii) facts upon which the

upon which the claim

claim is

is predicated

predicated were

were

unknown to

unknown to the

the petitioner and could

petitioner and could not

not have

have been

been ascertained

ascertained by

the exercise

the exercise of

of due

due diligence; or

diligence; or

the right

(iii) the

(iii) asserted is

right asserted is aa constitutional

constitutional right

right that

that was

was

recognized by

recognized the Supreme

by the Court of

Supreme Court of the

the United

United States

States or

or the

the

Court of

Supreme Court

Supreme of Pennsylvania after the

Pennsylvania after the time

time period provided in

period provided in

this section

this section and

and has

has been

been held

held by that court

by that court to

to apply

apply retroactively.

retroactively.

42. Pa.C.S. $$ 9545(b)(1).

42. Pa.C.S. A petition

9545(b)(1). A petition invoking one of

invoking one of the

the exceptions

exceptions must

must be

be filed

filed within

within

one year

one of the

year of the date

date the

the claim

claim could

could have

have first

first been

been presented,

presented, and

and aa petitioner

petitioner must

must plead

plead and

and

that he

prove that

prove he has

has met

met this

this requirement.

requirement. Commonwealth v. Peterson,

Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192

192 A.3d

A.3d 1123,

1123, 1125

1125 (Pa.

(Pa.

2018); 42

2018); Pa.C.S. $$ 9545()02).

42 Pa.C.S. 9545()02).

The Petitioner

The Petitioner alleges that the

alleges that the instant

instant claim

claim falls

falls under

under the

the newly-discovered fact and

newly-discovered fact and

government interference

government interference exceptions

exceptions to

to the

the PCRA

PCRA timeliness

timeliness requirement.

requirement. To

To qualify

qualify for

for the

the

newly-discovered fact

newly-discovered fact exception,

exception, aa petitioner needs to

petitioner needs to establish

establish that

that the

the facts

facts forming

forming the

the basis

basis of

the claim

the claim were

were unknown

unknown to

to him

him and

and could

could not

not have

have been

been obtained

obtained by

by the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due

diligence, Commonwealth v.

diligence, Commonwealth v. Burton,

Burton, 158

158 A.3d

A.3d 618,

618, 629

629 (Pa.

(Pa. 2017), Due diligence

2017), Due diligence requires that aa

requires that

petitioner take

petitioner take reasonable

reasonable steps

steps to

to protect

protect his

his own

own interests. See Commonwealth

interests. See Commonwealth v». Sanchez,

Sanchez, 204

204

A.3d 524,

A.3d 524, 526

526 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 2019)

2019) (petitioner failed to

(petitioner failed to explain how the

explain how the fact

fact that

that aa detective

detective was

was

found liable

found liable of

of malicious

malicious prosecution

prosecution in

in aa civil

civil case

case could

could not

not have

have been

been ascertained

ascertained sooner

sooner by

the exercise

the exercise of

of due

due diligence). A petitioner

diligence). A must explain

petitioner must explain why he could

why he could not

not have

have obtained

obtained the

the new

new

fact earlier

fact earlier with

with the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due diligence to satisfy

diligence to satisfy the

the newly-discovered

newly-discovered fact

fact exception. Id

exception. Id

the instant

In the

In instant petition, Petitioner claims

petition, Petitioner claims that,

that, on November 20,

on November 20, 2022,

2022, aa law

law clerk

clerk in

in the

the

law library

prison law

prison library provided him with

provided him with aa copy of aa list

copy of list of

of Philadelphia

Philadelphia Police

Police Officers

Officers accused

accused of

misconduct entitled

misconduct entitled "Right To Be

"Right To Be Free."

Free." Upon reviewing this

Upon reviewing this list,

list, he

he noticed

noticed that

that it

it included

included the

the

above-named Detectives,

above-named Detectives, whom

whom he

he alleges

alleges were

were involved

involved in

in his

his case.

case. On

On February

February 12,

12, 2023,

2023,

Petitioner allegedly

Petitioner received portions

allegedly received of Detective

portions of Detective Nordo's

Nordo's disciplinary

disciplinary file

file from

from the

the law

law clerk,

clerk,

who had

who had obtained

obtained the

the documents

documents from

from another

another inmate,

inmate, In his 907

In his 907 Response, Petitioner states

Response, Petitioner states that

that

he received

he received more

more information from the

information from the prison law clerk

prison law clerk on

on June

June 10th

10th and

and 20th,

20th, 2023

2023 regarding

regarding

additional allegations

additional of misconduct

allegations of misconduct by Detectives Nardo,

by Detectives Gaul, Jenkins,

Nardo, Gaul, Jenkins, and

and Verrecchia

Verrecchia which

which

predate his

predate his guilty

guilty plea.'

plea.'

The Petitioner

The Petitioner claims

claims that

that the

the allegations of misconduct

allegations of misconduct against

against the

the Detectives

Detectives in

in other,

other,

unrelated cases

unrelated cases constitute

constitute newly-discovered facts as

newly-discovered facts as they were never

they were never disclosed

disclosed to

to him

him by

by the

the

Commonwealth and

Commonwealth and they were unknown

they were unknown to

to him

him until

until they were provided

they were him by the

to him

provided to the prison

prison

law clerk.

law In his

clerk. In his 907 Response, Petitioner

907 Response, Petitioner alleges that he

alleges that he acted

acted diligently

diligently once

once he

he received

received

information from

information from the

the prison law clerk

prison law clerk regarding

regarding these

these allegations.

allegations. In

In support, he attached

support, he attached aa letter

letter

he sent

he sent to

to the

the Philadelphia District Attorney's

Philadelphia District Office on

Attorney's Office on January 12, 2023

January 12, 2023 requesting information

requesting information

related to

related to misconduct

misconduct or

or criminal

criminal acts

acts committed

committed by

by the

the Detectives. See Pet's

Detectives. See Pet's Exhibit

Exhibit 5.

Petitioner also

Petitioner also attached

attached excerpts

excerpts from

from an article entitled

an article entitled "The

"The Homicide

Homicide Files"

Files" that

that was

was

originally published

originally published by

by the

the Philadelphia

Philadelphia Inquirer on May

Inquirer on 7, 2021.

May 7, See Pet.'s

2021. See Pet.'s Ex.

Ex. 2.

2. Newspaper

Newspaper

articles about

articles about police

police misconduct in unrelated

misconduct in unrelated cases

cases are

are insufficient

insufficient to

to establish

establish the

the newly-

newly-

discovered fact

discovered fact exception. See Commonwealth

exception. See Commonwealth •

• Reeves,

Reeves, 2545

2545 EDA

EDA 2022

2022 (Pa.

(Pa. Super. June 9,

Super. June 9,

Petitioner did

7 Petitioner did not

not include

include any

any additional

additional information

information regarding

regarding allegations of misconduct

allegations of misconduct against Detectives

against Detectives

Gaines, Ronald

Gaines, Ronald Jenkins,

Jenkins, Watkins,

Watkins, or

or Holmes.

Holmes.

Commonwealth ». Castro,

(citing Commonwealth

2023) (citing

2023) Castro, 93

93 A.3d

A.3d 818

818 (Pa.

(Pa. 2014)).

2014)). A

A newspaper

newspaper article

article may

may

contain allegations

contain that suggest

allegations that evidence may

suggest evidence exist, "but

may exist, "but allegations

allegations in

in the

the media,

media, whether

whether true

true

or false,

or are no

false, are no more

more evidence

evidence than

than allegations in any

allegations in other out-of-court

any other out-of-court situation,"

situation," Id,

Id, Therefore,

Therefore,

articles referencing

newspaper articles

newspaper misconduct by the

referencing misconduct the Detectives

Detectives in

in unrelated

unrelated cases

cases do

do not

not constitute

constitute

facts, and

newly-discovered facts,

newly-discovered and only

only contain

contain information

information which

which could

could lead

lead aa petitioner

petitioner to

to discover

discover

facts.

Petitioner's claims

Petitioner's claims fail

fail to

to satisfy the newly-discovered

satisfy the fact exception

newly-discovered fact as he

exception as he has

has not

not

established that

established that he

he exercised

exercised due

due diligence in discovering

diligence in these allegations.

discovering these allegations. Petitioner

Petitioner could

could have

have

discovered the allegations

discovered allegations against

against the Detectives earlier

the Detectives earlier by making aa reasonable

by making effort to

reasonable effort to

discover them. With

discover them. With regard to the

regard to the alleged misconduct of

alleged misconduct of Detective

Detective Nordo,

Nordo, Petitioner

Petitioner could

could have

have

been obtained

been obtained this

this information

information as

as early as August

early as 2017, when

August 2017, when there

there were

were multiple

multiple new

new reports

reports of

his misconduct

his misconduct and

and suspension. There were

suspension. There were also

also articles

articles published by the

published by the Philadelphia

Philadelphia Inquirer

Inquirer

between 2019

between 2019 and

and 2021

2021 for each

each of

of the

the cases

cases where

where aa conviction

conviction was

was vacated

vacated based

based on

on the

the

misconduct of

misconduct Detective Nordo.8

of Detective Nordo.8

In his

In his 907

907 Response, Petitioner acknowledges

Response, Petitioner that the

acknowledges that the allegations of misconduct

allegations of misconduct in

in each

each

of the

of the cases

cases he

he cited

cited were

were made

made prior his guilty

to his

prior to guilty plea on January

plea on January 22, 2018. 9 Petitioner

22, 2018. has not.

Petitioner has not.

offered any reasonable

offered any reasonable explanation as to

explanation as to why he could

why he could not

not have

have learned

learned about

about these

these allegations

allegations

earlier with

earlier with the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due diligence. See Commonwealth

diligence. See Commonwealth •

• Talbert,

Talbert, 281

281 A.3d

A.3d 1091

1091 (Pa.

(Pa.

2022) (non-precedential

Super, 2022)

Super, decision) (appellant's

(non-precedential decision) (appellant's Brady claim regarding

Brady claim regarding allegations

allegations of

The Philadelphia

The Philadelphia Inquirer

Inquirer published articles regarding

published articles Jamaal Simmons'

regarding Jamaal Simmons' case case on

on January

January 21,

21, 2019,

2019, Sherman

Sherman

McCoy's case

McCoy's case on

on February 22, 2019,

February 22, 2019, Gerald

Gerald Camp's

Camp's case

case on

on February

February 28, 28, 2019,

2019, James

James Frazier's

Frazier's case

case on

on April

April I9,

I9,

2019, and

2019, and Akel

Akel Gracia's

Gracia's case

case on

on June

June 4,

4, 2021,

2021, The

The Philadelphia

Philadelphia Inquirer

Inquirer also

also published

published articles

articles regarding

regarding Reafeal

Reafeal

Fields' case

Fields' case onon December

December 19,19, 2022

2022 even though bis

even though bis conviction

conviction has

has not

not been

been vacated,

vacated, and

and regarding Rafi Dixon's

regarding Rafi Dixon's

case on

case on April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022 although

although his

his conviction

conviction was

was not

not vacated

vacated as as aa result

result of

of Detective

Detective Nordo's

Nordo's conduct,

conduct, but

but only

only on

the basis

the basis ofof ineffective

ineffective assistance

assistance of

of counsel

counsel for

for failure

failure to

to call

call an

an alibi

alibi witness.

witness.

the allegations

AI! the of misconduct

allegations of misconduct against the Detectives

against the Detectives referenced

referenced by the Petitioner

by the Petitioner in

in his

his 907

907 Response were first

Response were first

raised between

raised between 2006

2006 and

and 2017.

2017.

misconduct by

misconduct Detectives Nordo,

by Detectives Nordo, Gaul,

Gaul, and

and Verrecchio

Verrecchio in

in unrelated

unrelated cases

cases untimely

untimely where

where

did not

appellant did

appellant not explain he could

why he

explain why could not

not have

have teamed

teamed those

those facts

facts earlier by the

earlier by the exercise

exercise of

of due

due

when the

diligence when

diligence the unrelated

unrelated cases

cases preceded his petition

preceded his by several

petition by several years).

years).

Petitioner failed

Petitioner failed to

to detail

detail any efforts he

any efforts he made

made to

to discover

discover these

these allegations

allegations prior

prior to

November 2022,

November 2022, which

which was

was over

over four

four years and nine

years and nine months

months after

after he

he pled

pled guilty.

guilty. Instead

Instead of

details about

providing details

providing about his

his efforts,

efforts, Petitioner

Petitioner argues

argues that

that he

he was

was unable

unable to

to discover

discover these

these

allegations prior

allegations to November

prior to November 2022

2022 because

because he

he was

was limited

limited by

by his

his incarceration

incarceration and

and the

the fact

fact that

that

he primarily

he primarily speaks

speaks Spanish.

Spanish.

to the

Contrary to

Contrary the Petitioner's

Petitioner's assertion,

assertion, Petitioner

Petitioner must

must still

still plead

plead and

and prove

prove that

that the

the facts

facts

could not

could not have

have been

been obtained

obtained by the exercise

by the exercise of

of due

due diligence

diligence even

even though

though he

he is

is incarcerated

incarcerated and

and

the public

the record presumption

public record has been

presumption has been eliminated.

eliminated. Petitioner

Petitioner cannot

cannot merely

merely claim

claim that

that he

he was

was

unable to

unable to take

take any action to

any action to discover

discover these

these facts

facts as

as aa result

result of

of his

his incarceration.

incarceration. Petitioner

Petitioner was

was

represented by

represented counsel for

by counsel for much

much of

of his

his incarceration,

incarceration, specifically

specifically prior to his

prior to his preliminary

preliminary

his plea

throughout his

hearing, throughout

hearing, and sentencing,

plea and on direct

sentencing, on direct appeal, and during

appeal, and during his

his first

first PCRA

PCRA petition

petition

and subsequent

and but still

appeal, but

subsequent appeal, still failed

failed to

to take

take any action to

any action to discover

discover these

these allegations.

allegations.

While the

While the Petitioner's

Petitioner's primary

primary language is Spanish,

language is this does

Spanish, this does not

not absolve

absolve him

him of

of his

his

burden to

burden to plead and prove

plead and that he

prove that he exercised

exercised due

due diligence.

diligence. Petitioner

Petitioner cites

cites no

no cases

cases in

in support

support

which have

which have found

found that

that aa different

different standard

standard applies for non-English

applies for non-English speaking

speaking petitioners. The fact

petitioners. The fact

that the

that the Petitioner

Petitioner primarily speaks Spanish

primarily speaks Spanish did

did not

not hamper

hamper his

his ability

ability to

to discover

discover these

these

The Petitioner

allegations. The

allegations. Petitioner was

was clearly

clearly capable

capable of

of obtaining

obtaining this

this information

information with

with the

the exercise

exercise of

due diligence

due since he

diligence since he has,

has, in

in fact,

fact, accessed

accessed this

this information

information and

and relied

relied on

on it

it in

in submitting

submitting

extensive pleadings

extensive pleadings to

to this

this Court.

Court.

Petitioner's language

Petitioner's has not

language has not previously limited his

previously limited his ability

ability to

to access

access information,

information, submit

submit

or represent

pleadings, or

pleadings, himself in

represent himself in this

this case.

case. Petitioner

Petitioner represented

represented himself

himself on

on direct

direct appeal

appeal in

Court after

Superior Court

Superior after his

his appellate counsel filed

appellate counsel an Anders!

filed an Anders! Brief.

Brief. He

He has

has filed

filed two pro se PCRA

pro se

and when

petitions, and

petitions, when this

this Court

Court appointed counsel for

appointed counsel for his

his first

first PCRA

PCRA petition, he objected

petition, he objected and

and

requested to

requested to proceed

proceed pro

pro se

se with

with PCRA counsel appointed

PCRA counsel appointed as

as stand-by

stand-by counsel.

counsel. After

After aa Grazier

Grazier

hcaring wherein

hcaring wherein this

this Court determined that

Court determined that an

an evidentiary

evidentiary hear

hearn

nii gg was necessary despite

was necessary despite

counsel's Finley letter,

counsel's Finley letter, Petitioner

Petitioner was

was permitted to proceed

permitted to proceed pro se. This

pro se. This Court

Court then

then conducted

conducted an

evidentiary hearing

evidentiary hearing where

where the

the Petitioner

Petitioner represented himself with

represented himself an interpreter

with an present. Based

interpreter present. Based

on the

on the record

record and

and pleadings before this

pleadings before this Court,

Court, Petitioner

Petitioner could

could have

have discovered

discovered the

the allegations

allegations

with the

with the exercise

exercise of

of due

due diligence

diligence despite

despite speaking but has

Spanish, but

speaking Spanish, has not

not pied that he

pied that he did,

did, in

in fact,

fact,

take any

take any action

action whatsoever

whatsoever to

to discover

discover these

these allegations,

allegations,

Petitioner's Brady

Petitioner's claim also

Brady claim also fails

fails to

to satisfy the government

satisfy the interference exception

government interference to the

exception to the

PCRA timeliness

PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify

requirement. To for the

qualify for the government interference exception,

government interference exception, aa petitioner

petitioner

needs to

needs to establish

establish that

that his

his failure

failure to

to previously

previously raise

raise the

the claim

claim was

was the result

result of

of interference

interference by

government officials,

government officials, and

and the

the information

information could

could not

not have

have been

been obtained

obtained by

by the

the exercise

exercise of

of due

due

diligence. See Commonwealth

diligence. See Commonwealth v.

v. Williams,

Williams, 168

168 A,3d

A,3d 97,

97, 106

106 (Pa,

(Pa, 2017)

2017) (citing Commonwealth

(citing Commonwealth

941 A.2d

v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263,

1263, 1268

1268 (Pa,

(Pa, 2008)).

2008)).

Petitioner has

Petitioner has failed

failed to

to aver

aver any

any facts

facts which establish

establish that

that his

his failure

failure to

to previously raise

previously raise

this claim

this claim was

was the

the result

result of

of government

government interference

interference or

or that

that he

he exercised

exercised due

due diligence, as

diligence, as

discussed above.

discussed above. He

He did

did not

not provide

provide any

any details

details about

about any

any attempts he made

attempts he made to

to obtain

obtain this

this

information prior

information prior to

to November

November 2022

2022 and

and he

he did

did not

not assert

assert that

that he

he ever

ever requested information

requested information

from the Commonwealth

from the Commonwealth related

related to

to allegations

allegations of

of misconduct by the

misconduct by the above-named

above-named Detectives

Detectives

See Anders

See Anders •• California,

California, 386

386 U.S,

U.S, 738

738 (1967); see also

(1967); see also Commonwealth

Commonwealth MeClendon,

MeClendon, 434

434 A,2d

A,2d 1185

1185 (Pa.

(Pa. 1981),

1981),

before it

before it was

was provided to him

provided to him by the prison

by the law clerk.

prison law clerk. See

See Talbert, 281 A,3d

Talbert, 281 A,3d 1091;

1091;see