Marcus Eugene Smith appeals the denial of his second Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, entered on August 21, 2020. Smith was previously convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses stemming from a 2011 incident and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His initial appeal was affirmed, and subsequent attempts to seek relief through a first PCRA petition were unsuccessful.
In his second PCRA petition, filed pro se on August 30, 2018, Smith claimed timeliness based on newly discovered evidence regarding the indictment of the lead detective in his case, alongside allegations of constitutional violations and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court appointed counsel, who filed an application to withdraw, citing a lack of merit in the claims. The PCRA court determined that Smith's second petition was filed too late, rendering it time-barred and thus beyond the court's jurisdiction. As a result, the court denied the petition without a hearing.
On appeal, Smith's new PCRA counsel submitted a no merit letter, which raised the issue of whether Smith's petition could fit within an exception to the PCRA's time limitations. The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court's order and granted counsel’s application to withdraw.
Appellant claims eligibility for relief under 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) due to newly available exculpatory evidence that could have influenced the trial's outcome. The court first evaluates whether counsel has adequately complied with the procedural requirements for withdrawal as established in Turner/Finley. Counsel must conduct a thorough review, submit a detailed 'no merit' letter or brief, and inform the Appellant of his right to self-representation or new counsel. The court confirms that PCRA counsel met these technical demands, identifying the only viable issue as the entitlement to a new trial based on after-discovered evidence. Counsel conducted an extensive review and found no additional non-frivolous issues. Appellant's claims included the timeliness of the PCRA petition based on Detective Sherwood’s indictment, the entitlement to a new trial due to Sherwood’s subsequent charges, and the trial court's refusal to grant additional investigative funds. PCRA counsel deemed these claims either untimely or lacking merit and provided Appellant with copies of relevant documents, including the no merit letter and withdrawal petition. The court will perform an independent review of the record to determine if it concurs with PCRA counsel’s conclusions. Additionally, Appellant filed an 'Application to file docketing statement nunc pro tunc' on September 10, 2021, and later submitted a 'Motion to correct error,' clarifying that the September filing was intended as his pro se response to the no merit letter.
In an appeal regarding the denial of Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) relief, the court evaluates whether the evidence supports the PCRA court's decision and checks for legal errors. Timeliness of a PCRA petition is jurisdictional, requiring that it be filed within one year of the final judgment, except in specific circumstances outlined in section 9545(b). These circumstances include: (i) government interference, (ii) previously unknown facts, or (iii) recognition of a constitutional right by higher courts post-timeliness. The appellant’s judgment became final on July 30, 2015, allowing until July 30, 2016, to file a petition, but the current petition was submitted on August 30, 2018, making it untimely. A legislative amendment effective December 24, 2018, changed the timeframe for invoking timeliness exceptions from 60 days to one year, applicable only to claims arising within one year prior to the amendment. The appellant's claim, linked to Detective Sherwood’s indictment in January 2018, is relevant as it occurred less than one year before the amendment's effective date. The appellant contends that the indictment represents newly discovered facts, and PCRA counsel argues that the petition is timely as it was filed within one year of learning about the charges against Sherwood, who was convicted in August 2019 during the pending PCRA petition.
Appellant's pro se PCRA petition is deemed timely concerning his claim related to Detective Sherwood's indictment and conviction, as it was filed within one year of discovering the indictment, which became public on January 29, 2018. Appellant contends he is eligible for relief under 42 Pa.C.S. 9543(a)(2)(vi) due to newly available exculpatory evidence that could have altered the trial's outcome. This evidence includes allegations that Detective Sherwood improperly coached witnesses and failed to investigate the real perpetrator, Emmanuel Robinson, who confessed and provided details about the crime. Although the PCRA court did not receive evidence about Detective Sherwood's convictions, prior rulings indicated she was convicted for making false statements in unrelated murder cases.
To succeed on an after-discovered evidence claim, Appellant must demonstrate that the new evidence: 1) was discovered post-trial and could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence; 2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; 3) is not solely for impeaching credibility; and 4) would likely change the verdict. The court concluded that Appellant's new evidence does not satisfy these requirements, as it primarily serves to impeach Detective Sherwood's credibility and is not based on conduct related to Appellant's case. Events leading to Detective Sherwood's indictment occurred years after Appellant's conviction, making the evidence insufficient to warrant a new trial.
Appellant has not demonstrated that new evidence questioning Detective Sherwood’s credibility would likely lead to a different verdict. Allegations against Detective Sherwood include coaching eyewitness Ms. Lauw and neglecting to investigate Emmanuel Robinson, who confessed to the murder. However, the indictment and convictions related to Detective Sherwood occurred two years after Appellant's conviction and are not relevant to Appellant's case. Furthermore, Detective Sherwood's credibility does not affect that of other witnesses, particularly Detective James McGee, who corroborated Ms. Lauw’s testimony. Detective McGee testified that Ms. Lauw initially did not identify Appellant from a photo array but later recognized him at the preliminary hearing and claimed to have seen him shoot the victim.
Appellant's claims regarding the investigation of Emmanuel Robinson are also unsubstantiated. Evidence shows that Appellant attempted to manipulate Robinson to take the blame for the murder, even guiding him to retrieve the murder weapon. Robinson ultimately confessed to detectives, implicating Appellant in the process. Appellant's subsequent attempts to assert Robinson as the killer were contradicted by Woessner, who revealed that Appellant had orchestrated Robinson's confession. The record indicates that Detective Sherwood did investigate Robinson, and Appellant has failed to establish any connection between the alleged misconduct and his case. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not support the likelihood of a different verdict.
The indictment and conviction of Detective Sherwood do not undermine the testimonies of Emmanuel Robinson and Ashley Woessner, who both stated that Appellant suggested Robinson confess to the murder. Rejection of Detective Sherwood's testimony by a jury would not impact the credibility of these witnesses. Consequently, Appellant's claim regarding after-discovered evidence lacks merit. Additionally, Appellant's claims regarding the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance to locate witness Marlow Jernigan and provide funds for a private investigator are deemed untimely, as no exceptions to the one-year time bar were presented. The PCRA court's decision to deny Appellant’s petition is upheld, and PCRA counsel's petition to withdraw is granted. The court affirms the order, grants the motion to correct error, and grants the motion to withdraw as counsel, with jurisdiction relinquished. Judge Olson joins the memorandum while Judge Nichols concurs in the result. The judgment was entered on 6/28/2022. The discussion of Appellant's claims as after-discovered evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel yields the same result. The PCRA court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed on any basis.
