J-S10008-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

IVETTE RUEDAS,

Appellant No. 3429 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0501751-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RASHEED DURHAM,

Appellant No. 3432 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0612031-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JENNIFER BENIGUEZ,

Appellant No. 3434 EDA 2013
J-S10008-15

- 2 -

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1104961-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GEORGE MATEO,

Appellant No. 3437 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0010653-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOEL BROWN,

Appellant No. 3442 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0207082-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DANIEL FALU,

Appellant No. 3446 EDA 2013
J-S10008-15

- 3 -

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1106201-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TAMMY MICHENSELDER,

Appellant No. 3455 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0909232-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TWANIA HILL,

Appellant No. 3458 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0510412-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.
J-S10008-15

- 4 -

DANNY T. GORHAM,

Appellant No. 3459 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0003286-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILLIAM T. CHIRENO,

Appellant No. 3461 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0511041-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

BRENDA WATTS,

Appellant No. 3463 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1300499-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee
J-S10008-15

- 5 -

v.

ROBERT MOLL,

Appellant No. 3466 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0909231-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MARK MARQUES,

Appellant No. 3469 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0027188-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

THOMASINA HOPKINS,

Appellant No. 3470 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0906233-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA
J-S10008-15

- 6 -

Appellee

v.

LOUIS B. MERRERO,

Appellant No. 3471 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0101781-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANGEL GONZALEZ,

Appellant No. 3474 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0004744-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

EDWARD HARRISON,

Appellant No. 3475 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0107682-2004
J-S10008-15

- 7 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SHERRIA JOHNSON,

Appellant No. 3476 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0311842-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SHERRITA HALL,

Appellant No. 3480 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0906232-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALEX CALIX,

Appellant No. 3481 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0006641-2008
J-S10008-15

- 8 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SOTO HECTOR,

Appellant No. 3486 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0000083-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

REGINALD HALL,

Appellant No. 3487 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0906231-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NATHANIEL MOORE,

Appellant No. 3488 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0014839-2007
J-S10008-15

- 9 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JARELL CLARKE,

Appellant No. 3492 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0306871-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSE L. MALAVE,

Appellant No. 3495 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0304351-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JACKLINE CAMACHO,

Appellant No. 3498 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0809742-2004
J-S10008-15

- 10 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SOL M. M. GONZALEZ,

Appellant No. 3499 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-00005183-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KARLTON JOHNSON,

Appellant No. 3501 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1000941-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LOUIS RODRIGUES,

Appellant No. 3502 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
J-S10008-15

- 11 -

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0006642-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NICOLE TAMM,

Appellant No. 3503 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0010715-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

AMILIA FARRELL,

Appellant No. 3504 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0004303-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHAMAR WITHROW,

Appellant No. 3505 EDA 2013
J-S10008-15

- 12 -

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1204521-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MARITZA RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant No. 3508 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0301122-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANGELO LOPEZ,

Appellant No. 3516 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0302781-2006

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

VERNON HAYES,
J-S10008-15

- 13 -

Appellant No. 3517 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0010893-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RICKY BUCKNER,

Appellant No. 3518 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0007363-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILFREDO BAEZ,

Appellant No. 3523 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0001739-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.
J-S10008-15

- 14 -

JONATHAN DEAN,

Appellant No. 3525 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1002371-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TRAVIS JOHNSON,

Appellant No. 3526 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0107681-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LEE STEWART,

Appellant No. 3527 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0204821-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee
J-S10008-15

- 15 -

v.

MERIAM VARGAS,

Appellant No. 3528 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0007964-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MYRA HAYNES,

Appellant No. 3530 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0009486-2008

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANTHONY FERNANDEZ,

Appellant No. 3531 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0405811-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA
J-S10008-15

- 16 -

Appellee

v.

GEORGE SERRANO,

Appellant No. 3532 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1101501-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILLIAM APONTE,

Appellant No. 3533 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0001343-2007

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JORGE RIVERA,

Appellant No. 3534 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0100271-2005
J-S10008-15

- 17 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CARLOS ACOSTA,

Appellant No. 3570 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1007331-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ADA ANAYA,

Appellant No. 3579 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1000431-2003

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JUAN R. BROWN,

Appellant No. 96 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0207081-2004
J-S10008-15

- 18 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NADIYAH FRANKS,

Appellant No. 319 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1204501-2003

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

BRANDON DEVALLE,

Appellant No. 528 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order November 8, 2013

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-1207903-2000

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MAY 05, 2015

Appellants, in these fifty-one consolidated cases, appeal from the 

orders issued on November 8, 2013,1 which dismissed, without a hearing, 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10008-15

- 19 -

their petitions brought under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. In addition, Appellants have filed a petition to 

vacate the current briefing schedule and remand for an evidentiary hearing 

(Petition to Remand) or alternatively for a writ of habeas corpus. For the 

reasons discussed below, we deny Appellants’ Petition to Remand, deny 

habeas corpus and affirm the dismissal of their PCRA petitions.

On February 9, 2009, the Philadelphia Daily News published a story 

based upon information from a confidential informant (CI), concerning police 

corruption. (See PCRA Court Opinion, 5/14/14, at 1-2). Within sixty days 

of that story appearing, on April 13, 2009, counsel for Appellants filed the 

instant PCRA petitions, which the PCRA court consolidated.2(See id. at 2, 

and at n.2). Between May 2009 and September 2013, the PCRA court held 

regular status hearings awaiting the results from a possible investigation of 

the Philadelphia police officer in question, Officer Jeffrey Cujdik. (See id. at 

2). 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

1 The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notices, orders dismissing these cases, 

and Rule 1925(a) opinions on several different dates. Because the individual 

dates have no bearing on our decision, for purposes of consistency and ease 

of discussion, we will use the dates contained in the lead case, 

Commonwealth v. Ruedas, No. 3429 EDA 2013.

2 Again, as discussed above, we use the date counsel filed the PCRA on 

behalf of Appellant Ruedas. Philadelphia Courts were closed on Friday, April 

10, 2009, in observance of Good Friday.
J-S10008-15

- 20 -

On September 20, 2013, because Appellants failed to provide 

confirmation of any on-going investigation, the PCRA court issued notice of 

its intent to dismiss the petitions pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 907(1). (See id. at 3). In response, Appellants filed two 

affidavits, one from the CI in question, Ventura Martinez, and one from one 

of the Appellants, Danny T. Gorham. (See id. at 3). On November 8, 

2013, the PCRA court dismissed the petitions. The instant, timely appeal 

followed.3 

On appeal, Appellants raise the following questions for our review:

1. Should not this Court remand these cases for a hearing on 

after-discovered evidence pursuant to [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 720[C] 

where, while these cases were pending on appeal before this 

Court, it became known publicly that a secret police investigation 

determined that the police officer involved in this case had lied 

on a search warrant and had lied to police investigators?

2. Did not the [PCRA] court err by dismissing without a 

hearing the instant petitions where there were genuine issues of 

fact that could only be determined in an evidentiary hearing?

3. Is not state habeas corpus an appropriate remedy in the 

instant cases?

(Appellants’ Brief, at 3).

____________________________________________

3

In response to the PCRA court’s order, Appellants filed timely concise 

statements of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The 

PCRA court subsequently issued Rule 1925(a) opinions in each case. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
J-S10008-15

- 21 -

In their first issue, Appellants argue that this Court should remand the 

matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 720(C) because 

“critical new information [had] suddenly become[] known.” (Appellants’ 

Brief, at 12). Specifically, Appellants contend that two newspapers have 

reported, “a secret police investigation sustained eight findings against 

[Officer Cujdik] . . . [and that] these findings were so serious that Police 

Commissioner Charles Ramsey immediately suspended Officer Cujdik for 

[thirty] days with intent to fire him.” (Appellants’ Brief, at 13) (record 

citations omitted). However, Appellants have not demonstrated that 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) is applicable.4

Rule 720(C) provides that, “[a] post-sentence motion for a new trial 

on the ground of after-discovered evidence must be filed in writing promptly 

____________________________________________

4 We note that in order to obtain a new trial under Rule 720(C) on the basis 

of newly discovered evidence, an appellant must demonstrate that the 

evidence: 

(1) could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the 

trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely 

corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely to 

impeach the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely result 

in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.

Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84, 109 (Pa. 2009), cert. denied, 

131 S. Ct. 127 (2010) (citation omitted). Further, “the proposed new 

evidence must be producible and admissible.” Castro, infra at 825 (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). 
J-S10008-15

- 22 -

after such discovery.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C). The comment to Rule 720(C) 

specifically states in pertinent part:

Accordingly, after-discovered evidence discovered during the 

post-sentence stage must be raised promptly with the trial judge 

at the post-sentence stage; after-discovered evidence 

discovered during the direct appeal process must be raised 

promptly during the direct appeal process, and should include a 

request for a remand to the trial judge; and after-discovered 

evidence discovered after completion of the direct appeal 

process should be raised in the context of the PCRA.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) comment (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see 

also Commonwealth v. Soto, 983 A.2d 212, 213 (Pa. Super. 2009), 

appeal denied, 17 A.3d 1252 (Pa. 2011) (holding claims of after-discovered 

evidence filed after completion of direct appeal process cannot be considered 

under Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C); these motions must be considered solely under 

PCRA). Therefore, we cannot treat Appellants’ petitions as both PCRA 

petitions and Rule 720(C) motions for a new trial. Because Appellants have 

not argued that direct appeals are still pending in any of their cases (see 

Appellants’ Brief, at 12-15), we must treat their petitions as PCRA petitions. 

Thus, their claims that they are entitled to a new trial under Pa.R.Crim.P. 

720(C) must fail. See Soto, supra at 213. Appellants’ first issue does not 

merit relief.

Appellants next claim that the PCRA court erred in dismissing their 

PCRA petitions without an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, they argue, 

“there were contested facts that mandated a hearing.” (Appellants’ Brief, at 

16). We disagree.
J-S10008-15

- 23 -

We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review. In 

reviewing the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the 

PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free 

of legal error. The 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 prevailing party at the trial level. It is 

well-settled that a PCRA court’s credibility determinations are 

binding upon an appellate court so long as they are supported by 

the record. However, this Court reviews the PCRA court’s legal 

conclusions de novo.

We also note that a PCRA petitioner is not automatically 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We review the PCRA court’s 

decision dismissing a petition without a hearing for an abuse of 

discretion.

[T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition is not absolute. It is within the 

PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing if 

the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no 

support either in the record or other evidence. It is 

the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to 

examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in 

light of the record certified before it in order to 

determine if the PCRA court erred in its 

determination that there were no genuine issues of 

material fact in controversy and in denying relief 

without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

[A]n evidentiary hearing is not meant to function as a fishing 

expedition for any possible evidence. . . . 

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted).

As a preliminary matter, we observe that the timeliness of a PCRA 

petition is a jurisdictional requisite. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 

A.3d 1283, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 91 A.3d 162 (Pa. 2014). 

A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the date the underlying 
J-S10008-15

- 24 -

judgment becomes final. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). The three 

statutory exceptions to the PCRA’s timeliness provisions allow for very 

limited circumstances under which the late filing of a petition will be 

excused; and a petitioner asserting a timeliness exception must file a 

petition within 60 days of the date the claim could have been presented. 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (b)(2). To invoke an exception, a petition 

must allege and the petitioner must prove:

(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, to be eligible for PCRA relief, 

a petitioner must be currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation 

or parole for the crime the petitioner seeks to challenge. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9543(a)(1)(i). 

Instantly, we cannot discern from this record whether any of the PCRA 

petitions under review are timely, or whether any of Appellants are still 
J-S10008-15

- 25 -

serving a sentence for their challenged crimes.5 To the extent that any 

Appellant is no longer serving a sentence for the conviction in question, 

he/she is ineligible for relief under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9543(a)(1)(i). To the extent that any Appellant is serving a sentence for the 

conviction in question but filed an untimely PCRA petition that fails to allege 

an exception the PCRA’s time-bar, he/she cannot establish jurisdiction under 

the PCRA. See Turner, supra at 1285; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1), (b)(2). 

To the extent any Appellant is still serving a sentence for the 

conviction in question and has filed either (1) an untimely PCRA petition that 

pleads the “new facts” exception to the PCRA’s time-bar at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1)(ii); or (2) a timely PCRA petition raising an after-discoveredevidence claim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi), we address 

Appellants’ argument as follows.

The timeliness exception set forth in Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) requires a 

petitioner to demonstrate he did not know the facts upon which he based his 

____________________________________________

5 Our review of the records shows that some of the PCRA petitions in this 

matter are timely, while others are untimely; and that at least some 

Appellants are no longer serving the sentences at issue. While the PCRA 

court includes a general timeliness discussion in its Rule 1925(a) opinions, it 

does not differentiate between those timely petitions seeking PCRA relief 

pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and those untimely petitions 

seeking to establish an exception to the timeliness requirements pursuant to 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). Additionally, the PCRA court suggests none

of Appellants are currently serving the sentences at issue, and thus, are 

ineligible for PCRA relief. (See PCRA Ct. Op., at 8); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9543(a)(1)(i). Nevertheless, the PCRA court did not dismiss any of the 

PCRA petitions as untimely, or due to ineligibility for relief. 
J-S10008-15

- 26 -

petition and could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due 

diligence. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1273-74 (Pa. 

2007). Due diligence demands that the petitioner take reasonable steps to 

protect his own interests. See Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 

1168 (Pa. Super. 2001). A petitioner must explain why he could not have 

learned the new fact(s) earlier with the exercise of due diligence. See 

Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94, 98 (Pa. 2001). This rule is 

strictly enforced. See Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1080 

(Pa. Super 2010), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 1210 (Pa. 2011). Significantly, a 

claim based on inadmissible hearsay does not satisfy the “new facts” 

exception. See Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1269 (Pa. 

2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 916 (2008) (holding appellant’s presentation 

of inmate’s affidavit relating Commonwealth witness’ (declarant’s) alleged 

perjury did not satisfy “new facts” exception per Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) 

because claim based on inadmissible hearsay does not implicate “new facts” 

exception). 

To obtain relief on a substantive after-discovered-evidence claim 

raised in a timely-filed PCRA petition, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) the 

evidence was 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 Commonwealth v. 
J-S10008-15

- 27 -

Washington, 927 A.2d 586, 595-96 (Pa. 2007). Further, “[a] petitioner 

must . . . explain why his asserted facts could not have been ascertained 

earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 

A.2d 1035, 1041 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 951 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 

2008) (citation omitted). 

In a recent decision, Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 

2014), our Supreme Court held that allegations in a newspaper article “do 

not constitute evidence” and were not sufficient to support a motion for a 

new trial. Id. at 819. The Castro Court stated,

[A]llegations in the media, whether true or false, are no 

more evidence than allegations in any other out-of-court 

situation. Nothing in these allegations even read in the 

broadest sense, can be described as “evidence,” and 

references to the officer being under investigation for 

misconduct contains no information regarding what 

evidence existed to substantiate this averment. One 

cannot glean from these bald allegations what evidence of 

misconduct appellee intended to produce at the hearing.

Id. at 825. Our Supreme Court further characterized the information 

contained in newspaper articles as “double hearsay.” Id. at 826. The 

Castro Court concluded:

The relevant motion is not to serve as a preemptive means 

of securing a hearing that will itself comprise the 

investigation. Appellee needed to do more than present an 

article “pointing to” allegations that if true have the 

potential to aid his cause; he needed to clearly articulate in 

his motion what evidence he would present to meet the 

test. . . .

Id. at 828. 
J-S10008-15

- 28 -

Instantly, in arguing that they are entitled to an evidentiary hearing, 

Appellants rely on the newspaper articles attached to the PCRA petition, and 

attached to the Petition to Remand, and the affidavits attached to their 

response to the Rule 907 notice. (See Appellants’ Brief, at 9-10). To the 

extent any untimely PCRA petitions allege the “new facts” exception and rely 

on the newspaper articles, the articles constitute inadmissible “double 

hearsay” which fails to satisfy the “new facts” exception at Section 

9545(b)(1)(ii). See Castro, supra at 826; Abu-Jamal, supra at 1269. 

With respect to any timely-filed PCRA petitions alleging a substantive 

after-discovered-evidence claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi), 

Appellants attempt to distinguish Castro by stating: “Unlike [the] 

unsubstantiated newspaper allegations in Castro, here there are 

substantiated police investigations.” (Appellants’ Brief, at 14). Although the 

Castro Court notes the vagueness of the newspaper article at issue, the 

holding in Castro squarely held that newspaper articles are not evidence. 

See Castro, supra at 825. We are bound by Castro and agree with the 

PCRA court that the newspaper articles do not constitute evidence to satisfy 

their substantive after-discovered-evidence claims.

Appellants further argue that they proffered not only newspaper 

articles but also two affidavits in support of their contentions. (See 

Appellants’ Brief, at 16). The affidavit by Appellant Danny T. Gorham 

describes testimony of Officer Cujdik at Appellant Gorham’s preliminary 
J-S10008-15

- 29 -

hearing in 2006 and then states that this testimony was false. (See 

Declaration of Danny Gorham, 10/07/13, at unnumbered page 1). Gorham 

possessed this information before he pled guilty in October 2007. Thus, the 

testimony does not constitute a “new fact” for purposes of the timeliness 

exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), or after-discovered evidence as 

contemplated under the PCRA. See Bennett, supra at 1273-74; 

Washington, supra at 595-96.

Additionally, the affidavit by Ventura Martinez does not satisfy the due 

diligence requirements. While Appellants claim that Martinez was difficult to 

locate, (see Objection to Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 10/09/13, at 3, ¶ 6), 

they failed to provide any details regarding their attempts to locate him. As 

presented, the affidavit alone is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of 

due diligence for the timeliness exception or the substantive afterdiscovered-evidence claim.6

 See Bennett, supra at 1273-74; Breakiron, 

____________________________________________

6 Moreover, the Martinez affidavit is vague. It does not contain names, 

dates, or specific events. (See Affidavit of Ventura Martinez, 9/30/13, at 

unnumbered pages 1-2). While Martinez claims that the information 

contained in the newspaper articles is true and mentions certain instances of 

allegedly improper activities by Officer Cujdik, it does not connect those 

activities with any of Appellants and does not contest the substantive guilt of 

any of them. (See id.). Thus, the affidavit is only relevant for 

impeachment of the police officer and such an affidavit is not a basis for 

relief. See Commonwealth v. Foreman, 55 A.3d 532, 537 (Pa. Super. 

2012) (stating new evidence “[did] not meet the after-discovered evidence 

test” where its main purpose “would be to impeach the detective’s 

credibility”).
J-S10008-15

- 30 -

supra at 98; Carr, supra at 1168; see also Washington, supra at 595-

96; Taylor, supra at 1041. 

We conclude, for the foregoing reasons, that the combination of the 

newspaper articles and the affidavits was insufficient to satisfy the 

requirements for the “new facts” exception to the PCRA’s timeliness 

requirements or a substantive claim of after-discovered evidence. Thus, any 

Appellants who are eligible for PCRA relief and who pled the “new facts” 

exception as a basis for relief in an untimely PCRA petition or pled an afterdiscovered-evidence claim in a timely-filed PCRA petition, are not entitled to 

relief. The PCRA court properly denied all Appellants’ PCRA petitions 

without a hearing. See Miller, supra at 992. Appellants’ second issue does 

not merit relief.

In their third claim, Appellants allege that the PCRA court erred in 

concluding that habeas corpus was unavailable as a remedy. (See 

Appellants’ Brief, at 18-19). We disagree. The PCRA subsumes the remedy 

of habeas corpus. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 770 (Pa. 

2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1771 (2014). The Pennsylvania courts have 

consistently held that, so long as it falls within the ambit of the PCRA, any 

petition filed after the judgment of sentence is final is to be treated as a 

PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 591 (Pa. 

Super. 2007), appeal denied, 944 A.2d 756 (Pa. 2008) (noting cases). 

Appellants’ claims of newly discovered evidence are cognizable under the 
J-S10008-15

- 31 -

PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi). Thus, the writ of habeas corpus 

is not available to Appellants. See Turner, supra at 770; Fowler, supra 

at 591. Appellants’ third issue does not merit relief.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the PCRA 

court’s dismissal of Appellants’ PCRA petitions without a hearing. Further, 

we deny Appellants’ petition to vacate the current briefing schedule and to 

remand for an evidentiary hearing. 

Petition denied. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/5/2015