The opinion
[J-56-2025] [MO:Wecht, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 3 WAP 2025
:
Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the
: Superior Court entered June 28,
: 2024, at No. 17 WDA 2022, Affirmed
v. : in Part and Vacating In Part the
: Order of the Court of Common
: Pleas of Beaver County entered
JAMIE M. BROWN, : December 15, 2021, at No. CP-04-
: CR-000913-2001 and remanding.
Appellant :
: SUBMITTED: May 20, 2025
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: JANUARY 28, 2026
I join the Majority Opinion1 with the exception of Section V. I am persuaded by
Justice Dougherty’s view that the Majority unnecessarily resolves possible evidentiary
issues surrounding the Dorsett/Tusweet Smith statement that may or may not arise on
remand. (Concurring and Dissenting Op. at 7-8.) At this juncture, the parties have only
asked us to consider whether a third-party confession can serve as a newly discovered
fact under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).2 I agree with the Majority that it can,
and, here, under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), Brown
has alleged the fact upon which his Brady3 claim is predicated—i.e., the Dorsett/Tusweet
Smith statement. Notwithstanding, the PCRA court denied Brown the opportunity to prove
1 While Section V of the lead opinion has not garnered a majority vote, I, nevertheless,
refer to that lead opinion as the “Majority” or the “Majority Opinion” for ease of discussion.
2 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
that predicate fact, which resulted in the instant appeal. In my view, whether Brown can
prove the predicate fact at an evidentiary hearing with admissible evidence and,
ultimately, overcome the PCRA’s time bar is an issue entirely separate from the one on
which we granted review. Accordingly, I do not join this aspect of the Majority Opinion.
(Majority Op. at 35-40.)
[J-56-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 2