J-S37043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MALIK COLLINS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 921 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 20, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0015549-2010

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2023

Malik Collins (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his

second petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

In November 2011, a jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, 

criminal conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime1for the shooting 

death of Hassan Bentley. Relevant to this appeal, the Commonwealth 

presented the testimony of two eyewitnesses: Jose Briggs and Clarence Milton 

(Milton). Following Appellant’s conviction, the trial court sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. This Court 

affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903, and 907.
J-S37043-23

- 2 -

Court denied allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Collins, 91 A.3d 

1275 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 91 

A.3d 1238 (Pa. 2014).

On December 2, 2014, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition in which he

raised several claims of trial and appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness. The PCRA 

court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw from representation 

and a no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 

(Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) 

(en banc). The PCRA court subsequently permitted counsel to withdraw and 

denied Appellant’s PCRA petition. This Court affirmed the denial. See 

Commonwealth v. Collins, 174 A.3d 104 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished 

memorandum).

On January 22, 2021, Appellant pro se filed the instant PCRA petition, 

citing newly-discovered facts offered by a previously unknown witness. See 

PCRA Petition, 1/22/21, at 7. Appellant attached to his petition a handwritten 

letter from Jeremiah Bush (Bush),2 who stated 1) he was present at the time 

of the shooting; 2) he saw the shooter, and it was not Appellant; 3) Milton 

was incarcerated on the night of the shooting and therefore did not witness 

it; and 4) Bush was willing to testify on Collins’ behalf. Id., Exhibit A. Bush 

____________________________________________

2 Bush stated in the letter that he was an inmate at SCI Coal Township. PCRA 

Petition, 1/22/21, Exhibit A. Neither Appellant nor Bush explains their

relationship to one another.
J-S37043-23

- 3 -

also offered a court summary for a case involving Milton in support of his claim 

that Milton was in jail at the time. See id. 

The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss the 

petition without a hearing. On March 20, 2023, the PCRA court dismissed 

Appellant’s PCRA petition as untimely filed. Appellant pro se filed a timely 

notice of appeal.

Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Whether the PCRA court erred in finding [] Appellant was not 

actually innocent and dismissing his petition without a[n] 

evidentiary hearing to determine said innocence in detail by 

questioning counsel’s investigation and eyewitnesses[’] 

account[?]

2. Whether the PCRA court erred in finding [] Appellant’s PCRA 

petition was untimely filed[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

We review the dismissal of Appellant’s PCRA petition to determine 

“whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the record, and 

whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. 

Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 45 (Pa. 2012). “Our scope of review is limited to the 

findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the party who prevailed in the PCRA court proceeding. Id.

Prior to reaching the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must consider the 

timeliness of his PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d

988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014). A PCRA petition “shall be filed within one year of 

the date the judgment becomes final[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). A 
J-S37043-23

- 4 -

judgment of sentence becomes 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 

the review.” Id. § 9545(b)(3). “[T]he timeliness of a PCRA petition is a 

jurisdictional requisite.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. 

Super. 2015).

It is undisputed that Appellant’s PCRA petition is untimely, as his 

judgment of sentence became final in August 2014, when the time for filing a 

petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court expired. 

Nevertheless, a court may consider an untimely petition if the appellant can 

explicitly plead and prove one of three exceptions set forth under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Any petition invoking one of these exceptions “shall be 

filed within one year of the date the claim could have been presented.” 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). “The PCRA petitioner bears the burden of proving the 

applicability of one of the exceptions.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 171 A.3d 

675, 678 (Pa. 2017). Moreover, there is no absolute right to an evidentiary 

hearing on a PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238, 

1240 (Pa. Super. 2004).
J-S37043-23

- 5 -

Appellant invokes the newly-discovered fact exception set forth in 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and argues Bush’s letter provided previously 

unknown information.3 Appellant’s Brief at 12.

The newly-discovered fact exception

requires that the facts upon which such a claim is predicated must 

not have been known to appellant, nor could they have been 

ascertained by due diligence. 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.

Commonwealth v. Shannon, 184 A.3d 1010, 1015-16 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).

Here, the PCRA court concluded that Bush’s letter and his proffered court 

summary did not establish the “fact” that Milton was not an eyewitness to the 

shooting. PCRA Court Opinion, 3/20/23, at 1-2; see also id. at 2 n.3 

(explaining the trial court docket for Milton’s case indicated he posted bail in 

September 2005 and therefore was not in prison on the night of the shooting). 

The PCRA court also opined that the “fact” of Milton’s alleged incarceration 

was not previously unknown to Appellant, as evidenced by the fact that 

Appellant raised a similar argument in his first PCRA petition. Id. at 2.

____________________________________________

3 We note Appellant’s argument is minimally developed and lacks reference to 

the requirements of the newly-discovered fact exception or relevant caselaw. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that the appellant’s argument shall include 

“such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”).
J-S37043-23

- 6 -

The record supports the PCRA court’s findings. In his first PCRA petition,

Appellant alleged trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in conjunction with Milton’s 

purported incarceration at the time of the shooting. PCRA Petition, 12/2/14, 

at 10; see also Collins, 174 A.3d 104 (unpublished memorandum) 

(incorporating Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/16, at 10, and stating Appellant’s 

claim is factually incorrect). Similarly, Appellant previously asserted that 

Milton’s testimony identifying Appellant as the shooter constituted perjury. 

PCRA Petition, 12/2/14, at 10; see also Collins, 174 A.3d 104 (unpublished 

memorandum) (incorporating Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/16, at 10). Therefore, 

these alleged “facts” were not previously unknown to Appellant. Bush’s letter 

is, at best, a newly identified source. Cf. Shannon, 184 A.3d 1010, 1015-

16. As Appellant has failed to plead and prove the newly-discovered fact 

exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, his claim is without merit.4

For the above reasons, we affirm the PCRA court’s dismissal of 

Appellant’s second PCRA petition as untimely filed.

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 Appellant advances additional arguments in his appellate brief, none of which

invoke the timeliness exceptions at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii).
J-S37043-23

- 7 -

Date: 11/20/2023