affirming the lower court's denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief due to lack of timeliness and determining that, even if it were timely, the new information attacking the validity of CBLA likely would not have compelled a different verdict
How later courts described this case
- affirming the lower court's denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief due to lack of timeliness and determining that, even if it were timely, the new information attacking the validity of CBLA likely would not have compelled a different verdict
- stating that “[a] ruling or decision of a lower court will be affirmed if it can be supported on any basis[,] despite the lower court’s assignment of a wrong reason.”
- holding subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception not met where articles containing information relied upon had “been available and discoverable for more than two years” prior to filing of petition
- rejecting PCRA petitioner's attempt to invoke Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)'s exception to the time-bar based on the date of issuance of a study on FBI methodologies because the facts underlying the study were previously available
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion in all respects save for its treatment of the study by the National Academies of Science (“NAS”). It was improper for the Majority to engage in a merits analysis of the NAS study in order to dismiss it as untimely. Upon my review of the Appellant’s brief, the Tobin affidavit, and the NAS study, I cannot accept Appellant’s position that the NAS study constitutes “newly-discovered” evidence. Information upon which the NAS study relies had been in existence far in advance of Appellant’s instant PCRA petition and therefore, the NAS study does not constitute after-discovered evidence. Cf Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 , 817 A.2d 473, 476 (2003)(finding study of the Philadelphia criminal justice system by Professors David Baldus and George Woodworth was not newly-discovered evidence because the information upon which it relied existed at the time for Appellant to file a timely PCRA petition).
Consequently, because Appellants PCRA petition was untimely on its face and does not qualify for the newly-discovered evidence exception to the timing requirement of the PCRA, *291 we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of either the study or Appellants claims. Commonwealth v. Crews, 863 A.2d 498, 501 (Pa.2004)(stating that a PCRA court lacks jurisdiction to address claims in an untimely petition). The Majority Opinion’s views on the NAS study (Op. at 286-89, 870 A.2d at 870-71) and whether Appellant could be entitled to relief (Op. at 287-90, 870 A.2d at 871-72), in the absence of jurisdiction to do so, render these statements mere dicta. In these respects, I respectfully cannot join the Majority Opinion.
Justice N1GRO and Justice NEWMAN join this concurring opinion.