newly-discovered fact exception in Pennsylvania

2026Appellant did not invoke the newly-discovered fact exception in any other manner and did not assert facts sufficient to support a finding that he had satisfied the exception pursuant to Commonwealth v. - 11 - Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (total abandonment by PCRA counsel on appeal may serve to be a newly-discovered fact entitling petitioner to file an out-of-time PCRA petition).

2025Petitioner requests reinstatement of PCRA appellate rights nunc pro tunc, pleads an exception to the time-bar[.] See Commonwealth v. Bennett[,] 593 Pa. 382 [,] 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007), requests counsel assistance please. -7- Petition, 7/7/23, at 2.5 In Bennett, our Supreme Court held that the PCRA petitioner was entitled to the application of the newly-discovered fact exception under Section 9545(b)(ii), because he asserted that he was unaware his counsel had abandoned him on appeal.

2026Appellant appears to contend that NYU Report satisfies the newly discovered evidence exception to the statute of limitations, Section 9545(b)(2).1 To establish the newly-discovered fact exception to the PCRA time bar, a petitioner must demonstrate that “he did not know the facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2026This rule is strictly enforced.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 125 A.3d 1197 (Pa. 2015). -7- Upon review, we discern no error on the part of the PCRA court in concluding that Appellant has failed to satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar.

2026See Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017) (stating the newly-discovered-fact exception “requires the petitioner to allege and prove that there were ‘facts’ that were ‘unknown to him’ and that he could not have ascertained those facts by the exercise of ‘due diligence’”) (emphasis omitted). -6- Moreover, from what we can discern, Appellant’s other issues involve allegations of trial court error and ineffectiveness of various attorneys, all of which occurred in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

2026See Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017) (discussing the newly-discovered fact exception).

2026To invoke the newly-discovered fact exception, and thus establish the PCRA court’s jurisdiction, the petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving that “(1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown[;] and (2) [the facts] could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Cox, 146 A.3d at 227 (citation omitted).

2026To establish the newly-discovered fact exception, the petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving “(1) the facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown[;] and (2) they could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

2026“The focus of the newly- discovered fact exception is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.’” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (emphasis in original; citation, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

2026The focus of the newly discovered fact exception is on “newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (emphasis omitted).

2024Our Supreme Court has held that “judicial determinations do not satisfy the newly discovered fact exception because an in-court ruling or published judicial opinion is law, for it is simply the embodiment of abstract principles applied to actual events.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1146 (Pa. 2020) (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Watts, 23 A.3d at 986 (stating that “judicial determinations are not facts.”).

2024However, the newly-discovered fact exception “applies only if the petitioner has uncovered facts that could not have been ascertained through due diligence, and judicial determinations are not facts.” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 986 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis added).

2025Appellant, therefore had until March 29, 2007 to file the underlying petition, but he did not do so until June 5, 2023, approximately sixteen years too late. -4- In Commonwealth v. Brown, J., 141 A.3d 491, 502 (Pa. Super. 2016), we explained that newspaper articles are insufficient to establish a newly-discovered fact exception: Our Supreme Court addressed a situation like the one in the case sub judice in Commonwealth v. Castro, 625 Pa. 582 , 93 A.3d 818 (2014).

2025In Commonwealth v. Brown, J., 141 A.3d 491, 502 (Pa. Super. 2016), we explained that newspaper articles are insufficient to establish a newly-discovered fact exception: Our Supreme Court addressed a situation like the one in the case sub judice in Commonwealth v. Castro, 625 Pa. 582 , 93 A.3d 818 (2014).

2026With respect to the newly-discovered fact exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), the petitioner must establish that “the facts upon which the Brady claim is predicated were not previously known to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained through due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted).

2026With respect to the newly-discovered fact exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), the petitioner must establish that “the facts upon which the Brady claim is predicated were not previously known to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained through due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted).

2024Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (stating that “due diligence requires neither perfect vigilance nor punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for collateral relief.”). “[T]he analysis of whether a PCRA petitioner has satisfied the [Section] 9545(b)(1)(ii) time- bar exception is analytically distinct from the merits of any substantive

2024Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 , 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 , 1071 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (stating that “due diligence requires neither perfect vigilance nor punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for collateral relief.”). “[T]he analysis of whether a PCRA petitioner has satisfied the [Section] 9545(b)(1)(ii) time- bar exception is analytically distinct from the merits of any substanti

2026Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that a claim that previous counsel was ineffective is, in the vast majority of cases, not a newly-discovered fact entitling an appellant to the benefit of the newly-discovered fact exception and does not save an otherwise untimely PCRA petition for review on the merits.3 See Commonwealth v. Gamboa Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000) (holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel does not save an otherwise untimely petition for review on the merits because a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not the type of newly-discovered fa

2025If a PCRA petition invoking the newly-discovered fact exception is not filed within one year of the date that Appellant became aware of the underlying facts, “the [PCRA] court has no power to address the substantive merits of a petitioner’s PCRA claims.” Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 783 (Pa. 2000).

2026As such, “[i]n any - 10 - circumstance in which a PCRA petitioner can establish the facial requirements of the newly discovered fact exception, but the court rejects the claim merely due to the earlier public availability of the information, the court is overriding the language of the PCRA.” Id. at 1284.

2026Thus, “the newly discovered fact exception does not call for any assessment of whether the asserted facts appear in the public record.” Id. at 1283 (emphasis added).

2026In Davis, we observed that “[f]or purposes of the newly- discovered fact exception, our Supreme Court has ruled that mere allegations of police misconduct in unrelated cases, whether true or false, do not constitute new facts under the PCRA.” Id. (unpublished memorandum at 10) (citing Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818, 825-27 (Pa. 2014)).

2025In Commonwealth v. Brown, J., 141 A.3d 491, 502 (Pa. Super. 2016), we explained that newspaper articles are insufficient to establish a newly-discovered fact exception: Our Supreme Court addressed a situation like the one in the case sub judice in Commonwealth v. Castro, 625 Pa. 582 , 93 A.3d 818 (2014).

2026Importantly, “Pennsylvania law is unmistakably clear that only new facts, not newly-uncovered information pertinent to previously known facts, trigger the ____________________________________________ 7 Though Appellant also cited the governmental interference exception in his third PCRA petition, he makes no assertion that his inability to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials. -9- timeliness exception pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).” Commonwealth v. Branthafer, 315 A.3d 113, 130 (Pa. Super. 2024) (emphasis in original); see also Commonwealth v.

2026To successfully invoke the newly discovered fact exception, “a petitioner must establish that: (1) the facts upon which the claim -6- is predicated were unknown, and (2) the facts could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” Hereford, 334 A.3d at 908 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “[A] determination that the facts were unknown to the petitioner is circumstance-dependent and requires an analysis of the petitioner’s knowledge.” Commonwealth v. Branthafer, 315 A.3d 113, 128 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted).

2026See Shannon, 184 A.3d at 1017 ; see also Commonwealth v. Myers, 303 A.3d 118, 122 (Pa. Super. 2023) (for purposes of the newly-discovered fact exception, “the ‘fact’ on which the petitioner predicates his claim to an exception to the time- bar must bear some logical connection to a plausible claim for relief”) (citing - 25 - Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)).

2026See Commonwealth v. Myers, 303 A.3d 118, 123 (Pa. Super. 2023) (explaining that the petitioner failed to satisfy the due diligence prong of the newly discovered fact exception because the “PCRA petition and his briefs in this Court completely fail[ed] to explain why he did not learn about” the new fact until later).

2026Importantly, “Pennsylvania law is unmistakably clear that only new facts, not newly-uncovered information pertinent to previously known facts, trigger the ____________________________________________ 7 Though Appellant also cited the governmental interference exception in his third PCRA petition, he makes no assertion that his inability to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials. -9- timeliness exception pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii).” Commonwealth v. Branthafer, 315 A.3d 113, 130 (Pa. Super. 2024) (emphasis in original); see also Commonwealth v.

2026The focus of the newly-discovered fact exception “is on the newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or - 11 - newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 249 A.3d 993 , 1000 (Pa. 2021) (citation, emphasis, and footnote omitted).

2026See Shannon, 184 A.3d at 1017 ; see also Commonwealth v. Myers, 303 A.3d 118, 122 (Pa. Super. 2023) (for purposes of the newly-discovered fact exception, “the ‘fact’ on which the petitioner predicates his claim to an exception to the time- bar must bear some logical connection to a plausible claim for relief”) (citing - 25 - Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)).

2024Cf. Shannon, 184 A.3d at 1015-16 .4 As Appellant has failed to plead and prove the newly-discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, this Court, like the PCRA court, lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s issues.

2026See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 745 (Pa. Super. 2020) (reiterating that the focus of the newly- discovered-fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar “is on newly-discovered facts, not on newly-discovered or newly-willing sources that corroborate previously known facts or previously raised claims”) (en banc).

2025See Commonwealth v. Mickeals, 335 A.3d 13 , 24 (Pa. Super. 2025) (explaining “new sources of previously known facts do not satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception”); Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 746 (Pa. Super. 2020) (same).

2026See Hernandez, supra. In his PCRA petition, Thomas asserted that he could meet the newly- discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s one-year time bar.

2025See Hernandez, supra. As noted above, Richards concedes the untimeliness of his petition, but he asserts that the three affidavits mentioned above establish the newly- discovered-fact exception to the PCRA’s time bar. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

2026It is well settled that the focus of the newly discovered fact exception is on “newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1153 (Pa. 2020) (citation omitted).

2024Our Supreme Court has held that “judicial determinations do not satisfy the newly discovered fact exception because an in-court ruling or published judicial opinion is law, for it is simply the embodiment of abstract principles applied to actual events.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 , 1146 (Pa. 2020) (citations omitted and formatting altered).

2026See Monaco, supra. To the extent that the current PCRA petition and its attachments explain that Appellant could not have -6- obtained this information sooner because Mr. Hamilton was mad at him, Mr. Hamilton’s purported grudge did not eliminate Appellant’s duty to make “reasonable efforts” to uncover the facts supporting his current claims.3 See Brensinger, supra. Therefore, Appellant’s claim does not satisfy the newly- discovered fact exception to the PCRA time bar.

2026See Brensinger, supra; Monaco, supra; Carr, supra. Therefore, Appellant’s claim does not satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception to the PCRA time bar.

2026See Shannon, 184 A.3d at 1017 ; see also Commonwealth v. Myers, 303 A.3d 118, 122 (Pa. Super. 2023) (for purposes of the newly-discovered fact exception, “the ‘fact’ on which the petitioner predicates his claim to an exception to the time- bar must bear some logical connection to a plausible claim for relief”) (citing - 25 - Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc)).

2024Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 , 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 121 A.3d 1063 , 1071 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (stating that “due diligence requires neither perfect vigilance nor punctilious care, but rather it requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for collateral relief.”). “[T]he analysis of whether a PCRA petitioner has satisfied the [Section] 9545(b)(1)(ii) time- bar exception is analytically distinct from the merits of any substanti

2026To successfully invoke the newly-discovered fact exception, a petitioner must plead and prove “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). “[T]he focus of this exception is on the newly[-]discovered facts, not on a newly[-]discovered or newly[-]willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2023).

2026See, e.g., Reeves, 296 A.3d at 1231-34 (addressing the appellant’s invocation of the newly-discovered fact exception based on a (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 11 - most, Appellant has established the fact that Detective Baker previously had been investigated for misconduct in an unrelated case.

2026See Third PCRA Petition, 7/7/25, at 2; Appellant’s Brief at 7; see also Brown, 111 A.3d at 176 ; Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094 ; Commonwealth v. Kretchmar, 189 A.3d 459, 467 (Pa. Super. 2018) (concluding a PCRA petitioner failed to establish the newly discovered fact exception where the petitioner failed to present any new facts).

2024See Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA Petition, 3/30/2023, ¶¶ 3-4; PCRA Court Opinion, 6/23/2023, at 1-2; see also Kretchmar, 189 A.3d at 467 (holding that judicial decisions are not new “facts” for purposes of the newly-discovered fact exception); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 283 A.3d 178 , 187 (Pa. 2022) (stating that in order to satisfy the new constitutional right exception “a petitioner must prove that there is a ‘new’ constitutional right and that the right ‘has been held’ by that court to apply retroactively”).

2020See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 953 A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa. 2006) (stating that when a petitioner invokes the governmental interference exception of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), the petitioner must demonstrate due diligence in obtaining the facts at issue); Commonwealth v. Edminston, 65 A.3d 339, 350 (Pa. 2013) (stating that the newly-discovered fact exception at 42 -6- Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) also requires a petitioner to demonstrate due diligence in obtaining the facts at issue); Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 986 (Pa. 2011) (stating that judicial decisions are not “facts” t

2017In order for a study to satisfy the newly discovered fact exception, the Court said, the information “may not be part of a public record.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026Commonwealth v. Spotz, 642 Pa. 717 , 724, 171 A.3d 675, 679 (2017) (emphasis added and citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 6 Although Appellant also purports to assert his claim under the “newly-discovered facts” exception to the PCRA time bar, a claim relying on a judicial decision is properly evaluated under the new constitutional right exception and not the newly-discovered fact exception.

2024See Spotz, 171 A.3d at 679 .3 In his final issue, Calhoun claims that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his petition on the basis that he requested the recusal of the PCRA court judge, ____________________________________________ 3 In his brief, Calhoun argues that he satisfied the newly-discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s one-year time bar; however, he did not assert this timeliness exception in his petition.

2026The newly discovered fact exception “requires a petitioner to demonstrate he did not know the facts upon which he based his petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Balestier-Marrero, 314 A.3d 549, 554 (Pa. Super. -6- 2024), appeal denied, 330 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2024) (citations omitted).

2026We have long held that the newly- discovered-fact exception is based on “newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Balestier-Marrero, 314 A.3d 549, 554 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted).

2026The Court decided that Peterson had successfully invoked the newly-discovered fact exception based on first PCRA counsel’s per se ineffectiveness, “and the PCRA court made factual findings that Peterson did not know about the untimely filing and could not have ascertained this fact through the exercise of due diligence.” Id. at 325, 192 A.3d at 1130-31 (emphasis added).

2026While not cited by counsel in the supplemental PCRA petitions, we find that the facts here are analogous to those in Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d 1123 , 1124-25 (Pa. 2018), where our Supreme Court applied the newly-discovered-fact exception to an instance of per se ineffectiveness that wholly foreclosed review of Peterson’s claims.

2026See Third PCRA Petition, 7/7/25, at 2; Appellant’s Brief at 7; see also Brown, 111 A.3d at 176 ; Albrecht, 994 A.2d at 1094 ; Commonwealth v. Kretchmar, 189 A.3d 459, 467 (Pa. Super. 2018) (concluding a PCRA petitioner failed to establish the newly discovered fact exception where the petitioner failed to present any new facts).

2020See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (Pa. 2010). -5- Diaz argues that the newly-discovered fact exception under section 9545(b)(1)(ii) renders his petition timely.