factual predicate claim in Pennsylvania

2024Commonwealth v. Shannon, 184 A.3d 1010, 1015-16 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).

2019Recently, this court reiterated in Commonwealth v. Shannon, 184 A.3d 1010, 1015-1016 (Pa.Super. 2018), that to fall within the timeliness exception for newly discovered facts, “the factual predicate of the claim must not be of public record and must not be 5 The 60-day rule applicable to appellant’s claim was codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) and required that “[a]ny petition invoking an exception . . . shall be filed within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented.” A 2018 amendment to Section 9545(b)(2) substituted “within one year” for “within 60 days.” The effective date

2019The Court clarified, “to fall within this exception, the factual predicate of the claim must not be of public record and must not be facts that were previously known but are now presented through a newly discovered source.” Chmiel, 173 A.3d at 625 (quoting Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 352 (Pa. 2013)).

2019See 173 A.3d at 625 (“As this Court explained in Edmiston, to fall within this exception, the factual predicate of the claim ‘must not be of public record and must not be facts that were previously known but are now presented through a newly discovered source”).

2019The Court clarified, “to fall within this exception, the factual predicate of the claim must not be of public record and must not be facts that were previously known but are now presented through a newly discovered source.” Chmiel, 173 A.3d at 625 (quoting Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 352 (Pa. 2013)).

2018The Court further clarified that, “to fall within this exception, the factual predicate of the claim must not be of public record and must not be facts that were previously known but are now presented through a newly discovered source.” Chmiel, 2017 WL 5616233 , *5, quoting, Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 352 (Pa. 2013).

2021See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 984 (Pa. 2008) (“A PCRA petitioner cannot avoid the one-year time bar by tailoring the factual predicate of the claim pled in his PCRA petition in a way that unmistakably -8- J-S28006-21 misrepresents the actual nature of the claim raised.”).

2018"A PCRJ\ petitioner cannot avoid the one-year time bar by tailoring the factual predicate of the claim pied in his PCRA petition in a way that unmistakably misrepresents the actual nature of the claim raised." Com. v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 985-986 (Pa. 2011) (quoting Com. v, Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 984 (Pa. 2008)).To obtain relief on a substantive after- discovered evidence claim under the PCRA, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulati

2018"A PCRJ\ petitioner cannot avoid the one-year time bar by tailoring the factual predicate of the claim pied in his PCRA petition in a way that unmistakably misrepresents the actual nature of the claim raised." Com. v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 985-986 (Pa. 2011) (quoting Com. v, Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 984 (Pa. 2008)).To obtain relief on a substantive after- discovered evidence claim under the PCRA, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulati

2016It is well-settled that, “[a] PCRA petitioner cannot avoid the one-year time bar by tailoring the factual predicate of the claim pled in his PCRA petition in a way that unmistakably misrepresents the actual nature of the claim raised.” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 985-986 (Pa. 2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Hackett, 956 A.2d 978, 984 (Pa. 2008).

2005See generally Pa.R.E. 705.” In Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority v. Reilly, 825 A.2d 779 (Pa. Commw. 2003), the Commonwealth Court compared Rule 705 of the Eminent Domain Code with Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 705.

2005See generally, Pa.R.E. 705.” In Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority v. Reilly, 825 A.2d 779 (Pa. Commw. 2003) the Commonwealth Court compared Rule 705 of the Eminent Domain Code with Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 705.

2018Com. v, Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 595-96 (Pa. 2007).

2008See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (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); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594 , 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (holding that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) was not satisfied where PCRA petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 ,

2008See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (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); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594 , 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (holding that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) was not satisfied where PCRA petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 ,

2008See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (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); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594 , 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (holding that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) was not satisfied where PCRA petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 ,

2008See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (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); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594 , 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (holding that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) was not satisfied where PCRA petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 ,

2008See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (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); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594 , 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (holding that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) was not satisfied where PCRA petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 ,

2008See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 870 A.2d 864, 870 (2005) (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); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 580 Pa. 594 , 863 A.2d 423, 426-27 (2004) (holding that Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) was not satisfied where PCRA petitioner relied upon an affidavit containing facts that could have been previously ascertained upon the exercise of due diligence); Commonwealth v. Whitney, 572 Pa. 468 ,