Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

inappropriate in any case, but it is especially remarkable in light of Judge Sarmina's qualifications.Judge Sarmina has been a Court of Common Pleas Judge since 1998. She has been a HomicideJudge since 2003, and has presided in over 100 homicide trials. This Court has affirmed four firstdegreemurder convictions, three of them resulting in death sentences, where Judge Sarmina presidedat trial. See Commonwealth v. Mouzon, - A.3d -, 2012 WL 3570663 (Aug. 21, 2012);Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Brown, 987 A.2d 699 (Pa.2009); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 959 A.2d 916 (Pa. 2008). Judge Sarmina's experience in PCRAcases is extensive as well. Before she assumed the Bench, Judge Sarmina was an Assistant DistrictAttorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, and was an Assistant Attorney General inthe Office of Pennsylvania's Attorney General. Needless to say, Judge Sarmina is one of the mostrespected Court of Common Pleas Judges in the Commonwealth.discretion.Judge Sarmina's rulings are supported by the record. Judge Sarmina did not abuse herTHE PCRA COURT HAD JURISDICTIONThe Commonwealth baldly contends that Mr. Williams "did not plead any valid exceptionto the timeliness requirement." Application at 15. To the contrary, Mr. Williams both pled andproved valid exceptions to the time bar, as Judge Sarmina found.To be sure, the Petition was filed over one year after Mr. Williams' conviction became final.Mr. Williams, however, alleged that the petition is timely under 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b), whichprovides as follows:(l) Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition,shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless thepetition alleges and the petitioner proves that:8
(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference bygovernment officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of theConstitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of theUnited States;(ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to thepetitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of duediligence;* * *(2) Any petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (1) shall be filed within60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.For a petition to be timely under § 9545(b), the petitioner must thus plead (and then prove)either (l) government interference with presentation of the claim, or (2) the facts were unknown inthe exercise of due diligence, and (3) the claim was filed within sixty days of the date it could havebeen presented. If the petitioner's allegations make aprimajacie showing of timeliness, the PCRAcourt must conduct a hearing at which the petitioner may then prove his allegations as to timeliness.Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1274 (Pa. 2007) (where petitioner's "allegations bringhis claim within the ambit" of a statutory exception, "the PCRA court, acting as fact fmder, shoulddetermine whether [the petitioner] met the 'proof requirement").Here, Mr. Williams proffered that the Commonwealth suppressed evidence concerning theCommonwealth's key witness, Marc Draper; that this evidence was unknown to the defense despiteattempts by the defense to uncover it; and that Mr. Draper had revealed the evidence less than sixtydays before the filing of the Petition. See Petition at 21-22. The Petition quoted Mr. Draper'sJanuary 9, 2012 Declaration, in which he unequivocally stated, "Before now, I would not have talkedabout this information." Petition at 21-22 n.4 (quoting Declaration of Marc Draper (119112), ~ 8).On July 24, 2012, Mr. Williams filed Petitioner's Memorandum, further spelling out hisproffers as to timeliness. Mr. Williams again asserted that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact9
Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANI
Page 4 and 5: testimony, the parties' written sub
Page 6 and 7: alia, the original trial and capita
Page 10 and 11: that Mr. Draper told the prosecutin
Page 12 and 13: The Commonwealth, citing Commonweal
Page 14 and 15: 1. Government interference.Mr. Will
Page 16 and 17: knowledge ofMr. Draper's statements
Page 18 and 19: of assault with intent to murder, a
Page 20: As a prosecution witness ... , [Dra
Page 23 and 24: Judge Sarmina appropriately found t
Page 25 and 26: Norwood files Ms. Foulkes stated, "
Page 27 and 28: A. Yes.Q. How Mr. Norwood was kille
Page 29 and 30: There was additional undisclosed ev
Page 31 and 32: connect all of the dots." NT 9/2811
Page 33 and 34: e afforded relief as to the penalty
Page 35 and 36: himself would necessarily know that
Page 37 and 38: One, that all the requirements of t
Page 39 and 40: their findings and recommendations.
Page 41 and 42: Sexual Assault Resource and Counsel
Page 43 and 44: CONCLUSIONThe Commonwealth's motion
Page 45 and 46: ATTACHMENT A
Page 47 and 48: ATTACHMENT B
Page 49 and 50: 3. Chief Justice Castille was the D
Page 51 and 52: INQUIRER (Oct. 21, 1993) (available
Page 53 and 54: allegation"); Beasley. 937 A.2d at
Page 55 and 56: was the District Attorney responsib
Page 57 and 58: Ripe for Disqualification. 52 Ariz.
Page 59 and 60:
1130,1134 (6th Cir.1969) (applying
Page 61 and 62:
objective standards that govern rec
Page 63:
Court's adoption of the following "
show all

Response in Opposition to the Commonwealth's Motion to Vacate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?