The opinion
J-S76012-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
TROY COLEMAN :
: No. 3276 EDA 2016
Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order September 19, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0505261-1990
CP-51-CR-0920731-1990
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED APRIL 18, 2018
Troy Coleman appeals pro se from the order dismissing his petition
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). He argues the PCRA court
erred in finding he failed to establish an exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. We
affirm.
A jury convicted Coleman of, among other crimes, murder of the second
degree for killing Kevin Jones. The court sentenced Coleman to life in prison
for this conviction. In this, his third PCRA petition, Coleman argues a primary
Commonwealth witness, Darren Johnson, has recanted his testimony. The
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S76012-17
PCRA court found this recantation did not satisfy any of the exceptions to the
PCRA’s time-bar, and Coleman filed this timely appeal.
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA by examining
whether the court’s determination is supported by the evidence of record and
is free of legal error. See Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795, 799 n.2
(Pa. 2005).
The timeliness of a PCRA petition is jurisdictional. See Commonwealth
v. Hernandez, 79 A.3d 649, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013). Generally, a petition for
relief under the PCRA, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed
within one year of the date the judgment is final unless the petition alleges,
and the petitioner proves, an exception to the timeliness requirement. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). A PCRA petition invoking one of these statutory
“exceptions must be filed within sixty days of the date the claims could have
been presented.” Hernandez, 79 A.3d at 652 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9545(b)(2)).
Coleman’s petition is clearly facially untimely, as his previous petition
was dismissed on timeliness grounds. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 119
EDA 2012 (Pa. Super., filed 4/30/13) (unpublished memorandum). He does
not argue otherwise in his brief, but contends that timeliness exceptions apply.
In his first issue, Coleman claims the court erred in finding he had not
established the application of the newly discovered evidence exception, §
9545(b)(1)(ii). The basis of his claim is Johnson’s recantation.
-2-
J-S76012-17
Coleman raised the same claim in his first PCRA petition, filed in 1997,
and then again in his second PCRA petition, filed in 2006. See Coleman, 119
EDA 2012, at 7. Upon reviewing the dismissal of Coleman’s second petition,
this Court noted that a new affidavit from Johnson did not satisfy the “newly-
discovered facts” exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, as it was “merely another
conduit for the same claim [Coleman] presented in 1998.” Id., at 8 (citation
omitted).
Coleman now argues that a DVD recording of Johnson’s recantation
satisfies the “newly discovered facts” exception. Once again, however, the
DVD is merely another conduit for the same old claim that Johnson perjured
himself at Coleman’s trial. Thus, it is a “newly discovered or newly willing
source for previously known facts,” and cannot qualify as newly discovered
evidence. Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008)
(citation omitted).
Coleman also argues Johnson’s recantation satisfies the government
interference exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, § 9545(b)(1)(i). The basis for
this claim is that “Johnson was threatened with criminal prosecution if he took
the stand and revealed the information in his then affidavit” during hearings
on Coleman’s first PCRA petition. Appellant’s Brief, at 13. Coleman already
litigated this issue and lost. See Coleman, 119 EDA 2012, at 10. It therefore
cannot form the basis for relief now. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(a)(3).
-3-
J-S76012-17
As Coleman has failed to establish any error on the part of the PCRA
court, we affirm the order dismissing his petition as untimely.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/18/18
-4-