J-S11033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

EUGENE JACOBS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1732 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 10, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1003721-1995

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 23, 2023

Appellant, Eugene Jacobs, appeals pro se from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed as untimely his 

third petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm. 

A prior panel of this Court summarized some of the relevant facts and 

procedural history of this case as follows:

On October 2, 1996, a jury found Appellant guilty of firstdegree murder, robbery, theft, and possessing an 

instrument of crime. On October 4, 1996, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to serve a term of life in prison for the 

murder conviction and various other terms of imprisonment 

for the remaining convictions. [This Court] affirmed 

Appellant’s judgment of sentence on December 1, 1999; 

Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with 

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Commonwealth v. 

Jacobs, 750 A.2d 369 (Pa.Super. 1999) (unpublished 

memorandum)[.]

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 
J-S11033-23

- 2 -

On November 30, 2000, Appellant filed his first PCRA 

petition and the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent 

Appellant. On October 2, 2002, the PCRA court dismissed 

Appellant’s petition and, after a lengthy appeal, this Court 

affirmed the dismissal on April 8, 2009. The Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of 

appeal on December 9, 2009. Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 

974 A.2d 1184 (Pa.Super. 2009) (unpublished 

memorandum)..., appeal denied, [604 Pa. 688, 985 A.2d 

970 (2009)].

Commonwealth v. Jacobs, No. 250 EDA 2016, 2016 WL 7031029, at *1

(Pa.Super. filed Dec. 2, 2016) (unpublished memorandum) (internal footnote 

omitted), appeal denied, 641 Pa. 798, 169 A.3d 595 (2017). On May 14, 

2012, Appellant filed a second PCRA petition, which the court dismissed as 

untimely on December 2, 2016; our Supreme Court denied allowance of 

appeal on June 27, 2017. See id. 

Appellant filed the current pro se serial PCRA petition on May 9, 2019. 

In it, Appellant claimed the “newly-discovered facts” exception to the PCRA 

time-bar, alleging, inter alia, that he recently discovered a newspaper article

discussing the prosecutorial misconduct of former prosecutor Roger King2in 

an unrelated case. Based on the claims made in the newspaper article, 

Appellant insisted Roger King, who was also the prosecutor in Appellant’s case, 

had committed similar misconduct in his own case. Appellant further alleged 

various claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. While his petition was 

____________________________________________

2 There is no familial relationship between this prosecutor and the authoring 

jurist. 
J-S11033-23

- 3 -

pending, another newspaper article was published detailing allegations of 

misconduct against other homicide detectives who were involved in 

Appellant’s case. Thus, Appellant filed a supplemental PCRA petition, claiming 

that those detectives had also committed misconduct in Appellant’s case. The 

court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing per 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on December 17, 2021. Appellant filed a response on 

December 30, 2021. On June 10, 2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition 

as untimely. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on June 24, 2022. The 

court did not order, and Appellant did not file, a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

As a prefatory matter, the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional 

requisite. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 598 Pa. 350, 956 A.2d 978 (2008), 

cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1285, 129 S.Ct. 2772, 174 L.Ed.2d 277 (2009). 

Pennsylvania law makes clear that no court has jurisdiction to hear an 

untimely PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 575 Pa. 500, 837 

A.2d 1157 (2003). The PCRA requires a petition, including a second or 

subsequent petition, to be filed within one year of the date the underlying 

judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A judgment of sentence 

is final “at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in 

the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking review.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(3). 
J-S11033-23

- 4 -

Generally, to obtain merits review of a PCRA petition filed more than 

one year after the judgment of sentence became final, the petitioner must 

allege and prove at least one of the three timeliness exceptions: 

(i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result 

of interference by government officials with the presentation 

of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this 

Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United 

States; 

(ii) 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; or 

(iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was 

recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period 

provided in this section and has been held by that court to 

apply retroactively. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). Additionally, a PCRA petitioner must file his 

petition within one year of the date the claim could have first been presented. 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2) (as amended, effective December 24, 2018; 

providing one year statutory window in which to invoke time-bar exception for 

claims arising on or after December 24, 2017). 

To meet the “newly discovered facts” timeliness exception set forth in 

Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner must 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. Brown, 111 

A.3d 171, 176 (Pa.Super. 2015). “Due diligence demands that the petitioner 

take reasonable steps to protect his own interests. A petitioner must explain 
J-S11033-23

- 5 -

why he could not have learned of the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of 

due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44, 53 (Pa.Super. 

2011). A claim based on inadmissible hearsay does not satisfy the “newlydiscovered facts” exception.3

 Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 596 Pa. 219, 

230, 941 A.2d 1263, 1269 (2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 916, 129 S.Ct. 271, 

172 L.Ed.2d 201 (2008). 

Instantly, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on December 

31, 1999, upon expiration of the time for filing a petition for allowance of 

appeal with our Supreme Court, following this Court’s affirmance of his 

judgment of sentence. See Pa.R.A.P. 1113(a) (stating petition for allowance 

of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of order of Superior Court 

____________________________________________

3 The substantive claim of after-discovered evidence and the newly-discovered 

facts exception to the PCRA timeliness requirements are often conflated and 

referred to as the same theory of relief. These concepts, however, are not 

interchangeable and require different proofs. Under the newly-discovered 

facts exception to an untimely PCRA petition, a petitioner must establish “the 

facts upon which the claim was predicated were unknown and...could not 

have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence. If the petitioner 

alleges and proves these two components, then the PCRA court has 

jurisdiction over the claim under this subsection.” Commonwealth v. 

Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 395, 930 A.2d 1264, 1272 (2007) (emphasis in 

original). Only if a petitioner meets the statutory jurisdictional requirements 

by satisfying this exception to the PCRA time-bar, can he then argue for relief 

on a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim, which requires the

petitioner to demonstrate: (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 cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to 

impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict. See, 

e.g., Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698, 927 A.2d 586 (2007); 

Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 579 Pa. 490, 856 A.2d 806 (2004). 
J-S11033-23

- 6 -

sought to be reviewed). Appellant filed the current PCRA petition on May 9, 

2019, which is patently untimely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). 

Appellant now attempts to invoke the “newly-discovered facts” 

exception to the PCRA time-bar, relying on the newspaper articles discussing 

misconduct in unrelated cases by prosecutor Roger King and other detectives 

involved in Appellant’s case. In evaluating Appellant’s claims, the PCRA court 

explained:

While your petition states that you are invoking the 

previously unknown facts exception, you fail to identify 

which facts were previously unknown, and why you were 

unable to discover them through the exercise of due 

diligence. Instead, the petition asserts several claims of 

misconduct by various police officers and assistant district 

attorneys, as well as raising the ineffectiveness of your trial 

counsel, regarding your alibi defense, your interrogation 

and confession, and the conclusions of the medical 

examiner. You failed, however, to demonstrate how any of 

these facts, which pertain to pre-trial and trial issues, were 

previously unknown to you. Therefore, your petition does 

not meet the criteria to overcome the time bar.

(Rule 907 Notice, filed 12/17/21, at 1-2). We agree with the PCRA court that 

Appellant has failed to exercise due diligence regarding any “new facts” that 

pertain to his case. See Brown, supra. Essentially, Appellant is simply using 

the fact that Roger King and other detectives committed misconduct in 

unrelated cases as an attempt to call into question the investigation and 

prosecution of his own case. 

We further note that Appellant’s reliance on the newspaper articles as 

the “new facts” amounts to inadmissible hearsay that cannot satisfy the 
J-S11033-23

- 7 -

proffered exception. See Commonwealth v. Castro, 625 Pa. 582, 93 A.3d 

818 (2014) (explaining newspaper articles contain allegations which suggest 

evidence might exist but are no more than allegations in any other out-ofcourt situation; thus, newspaper articles generally constitute inadmissible 

hearsay); Abu-Jamal, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Trivigno, 262 

A.3d 472, 2021 WL 3465926, at *4 (Pa.Super. filed Aug. 6, 2021) 

(unpublished memorandum)4 (holding: “Stated simply, facts are not what a 

reader gleans from media reports or newspaper articles but, instead, facts are 

substantive events...”; newspaper articles presented by appellant alleging 

misconduct by detectives do not specifically cite any admissions or conclusive 

findings of wrongdoing by detective at issue that may be linked to appellant’s 

case; “[t]herefore, [a]ppellant failed to demonstrate that the newspaper 

article contained a fact that triggered the newly-discovered facts 

exception...”). Similarly, the newspaper articles at issue here do not 

specifically cite any admissions or conclusive findings of wrongdoing by Roger 

King or other detectives that may be linked to Appellant’s case. See id. Under 

these circumstances, Appellant’s current PCRA petition remains time barred. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing Appellant’s current PCRA petition 

as untimely. 

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions of this 

Court filed after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).
J-S11033-23

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/23/2023