# Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Burton, S.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 28, 2017 · 638 Pa. 687

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873638

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Shawn Lamar BURTON, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 28, 2017
- **Citations:** 638 Pa. 687; 158 A.3d 618; 2017 Pa. LEXIS 664; 2017 WL 1149203
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy
- **Cited by:** 458 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873638

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “to prevail on an after- discovered evidence claim for relief under subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi), a petitioner must prove that (1) the exculpatory evidence has been discovered after trial and could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable dilige…
- holding that there is no presumption that a public record imputes knowledge to an incarcerated pro se petitioner, and directing PCRA courts to consider “whether, if the facts were unknown to the petitioner, the facts could have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence…
- holding that public record cannot presumption does not apply to pro se petitioners who are incarcerated, but stating that such petitioners must still plead and prove that the facts at issue were unknown to the petitioner and not ascertainable by the exercise of due diligence.”
- holding that -6- J-S12010-22 the presumption that information which is of public record cannot be deemed ‘unknown’ for purposes of the newly-discovered-fact exception to the PCRA’s one-year time limit does not apply to pro se, incarcerated petitioners
- explaining that “the newly-discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after-discovered evidence basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)[]”

## Opinion text

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR,
concurring
I join the majority opinion based upon the precedent established by Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382 , 930 A.2d 1264 (2007), supplemented by the present opinion’s developed explication of the unreasonableness in enforcing a strong presumption of access to public records at least as against unrepresented prisoners.
To the extent that the majority undertakes to reaffirm and buttress the logic of Bennett , however, I continue to have great difficulty with the approach to statutory construction by which the Bennett majority decoupled the “facts” contemplated by Section 9545(b)(ii) of the PCRA from the “claims” serving as the explicit bases for statutory post-conviction relief per Section 9543(a). See Bennett, 593 Pa. at 402-10 , 930 A.2d at 1275-80 (Saylor, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9873638. Public record. Not legal advice.