Case Title: Comm. v. Hawkins, T. (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2008-08-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-99-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. THOMAS W. HAWKINS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 488 CAP Appeal from the Order entered on August 30, 2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division, dismissing the PCRA petition at Nos. 2012-90, 2012.1-90, 2012.2-90 SUBMITTED: April 20, 2006 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE TODD I join the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court in its result, as I agree Appellant has failed to establish his Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition was timely filed. My reasoning somewhat differs, however. Contrary to the lead opinion’s characterization, I agree with the conclusion of Mr. Justice Saylor in his concurring opinion that “the evidence of a pre-existing agreement between Tucker and the Commonwealth as reflected in the District Attorney’s 2003 deposition testimony constituted a factual predicate for Appellant’s claimthat is distinct from either Tucker’s earlier statement regarding his subjective hope of favorable treatment at his sentencing hearing or the District Attorney’s subsequent testimony at that hearing.” Concurring Op. at 1. Nevertheless, Appellant was obliged to prove why, with the exercise of due diligence, he could not have obtained Castor’s deposition testimony prior to 2003. As Appellant does not assert, let alone prove, that he could not have sought, or that he [J-99-2006] - 2 sought and was denied, such discovery prior to this time, he fails to fulfill the due diligence requirement. For this reason, I agree with the lead opinion Appellant has failed to establish his PCRA claim falls within any of the timeliness exceptions to the PCRA, and that his PCRA petition was, therefore, untimely filed.