J-S64014-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DAVID STEWARD

Appellant No. 469 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered January 19, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No: CP-46-CR-0020805-1986

BEFORE: STABILE, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2016

Appellant, David Steward, appeals pro se from the January 19, 2016 

order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, 

dismissing his third petition for collateral relief filed on May 29, 2015 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46, and 

granting counsel’s petition to withdraw under Commonwealth v. Finley, 

550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). Following review, we affirm.

In its Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition 

without a hearing, the PCRA court provided the following factual and 

procedural background:

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64014-16

- 2 -

After a nine day jury trial in June 1986, [Appellant] was found 

guilty of first degree murder, aggravated assault, robbery, 

burglary, theft by unlawful taking, possession of an instrument 

of crime, criminal conspiracy, receiving stolen property, reckless 

endangerment and carrying firearms without a license.[1] On 

May 12, 1987, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

[1] The facts surrounding this case are as follows. On New Year’s Day 

1986, two intruders broke into the home of Doctor Michael and Mary 

Groll. After one intruder shot and killed Dr. Groll, the other intruder 

took a ring and money from Mrs. Groll. Approximately two weeks 

later, [Appellant] was questioned about this matter. Although given 

his Miranda rights, [Appellant] gave an oral statement implicating 

himself in the crime. He subsequently signed a written waiver of his 

rights, a confession and made a drawing of the victims’ bedroom. Mrs. 

Groll later picked [Appellant] out of a line-up. 

[Appellant’s] first attempt at an appeal was ultimately dismissed 

by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. After a pro se PCRA 

petition, [Appellant’s] appellate rights were ultimately reinstated 

on November 20, 1999. Counsel was appointed for this appeal 

but the appeal was denied by the Superior Court on April 25, 

2001. [Appellant] sought review by the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court but this was also denied on December 4, 2001. A second 

PCRA petition was filed on May 14, 2002 [“raising only the issue 

of DNA testing as it related to the hair sample recovered by the 

police”1]. This petition was dismissed by the trial court on 

December 16, 2002. After an appeal, the Superior Court agreed 

with the trial court and affirmed the dismissal of [Appellant’s] 

second PCRA petition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined 

to review the matter through an order dated May 11, 2004. On 

July 29, 2004, [Appellant] filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus with the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania. This matter was disposed of through 

opinions dated March 30, 2005 and August 30, 2007.

On May 29, 2015, [Appellant] filed a third pro se PCRA petition 

regarding DNA testing and relied on the exception for previously 

unknown facts. On June 30, 2015, the [PCRA court] appointed 

[PCRA counsel] to represent [Appellant] in this matter. The 

[PCRA court] gave counsel ninety (90) days from the date of the 

____________________________________________

1

PCRA Court Rule 907 Notice, 12/18/15, at 3.
J-S64014-16

- 3 -

appointing order to review the matter. On September 30, 2015, 

the undersigned granted [PCRA counsel’s] request for a sixty 

(60) day continuance. On December 3, 2015, [PCRA counsel] 

filed a detailed “no merit” letter, pursuant to Commonwealth v. 

Finley, 550 A.2d 2013 (Pa. Super. 1988), as well as a request 

to withdraw as counsel, stating that in his opinion [Appellant] is 

not entitled to relief under the PCRA. Following this [c]ourt’s 

independent review of the record, we determine that [PCRA 

counsel] is correct and no grounds exist which require an 

evidentiary hearing.[3]

[3]With his “no merit” letter, [PCRA counsel] also filed [Appellant’s] pro 

se Motion for Post-Conviction DNA Testing, which was essentially an 

amended pro se PCRA petition.

PCRA Court Rule 907 Notice, 12/18/15, at 1-2 (emphasis in original) 

(footnote omitted). In its Rule 907 Notice, the PCRA court explained its 

conclusion that Appellant’s petition was untimely and that Appellant failed to 

plead or prove that information upon which he relied—a report of DNA 

analysis errors published in an April 18, 2015 Washington Post article—could 

not have been obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence. Id. at 

3-5. Further, Appellant did not establish that the Washington Post article, 

as “newly-discovered evidence,” would likely compel a different verdict 

considering that Appellant confessed, that he drew a diagram of the crime 

scene, and that he was identified by Mrs. Groll. Id. at 5. Finally, the PCRA 

court concluded that the issue was previously litigated when Appellant’s 

2002 DNA request for testing of hair samples was denied by the PCRA court, 

a decision affirmed by this Court following which our Supreme Court denied 

his petition for allowance of appeal. Id. 
J-S64014-16

- 4 -

Having determined that Appellant’s petition was time-barred and 

lacked merit, the PCRA court announced that Appellant was not entitled to 

relief. Id. The court informed Appellant of his right to respond to the Rule 

907 Notice within 20 days. Id. at 5-6. Appellant did not file a response.2 

The PCRA court issued its final notice of dismissal on January 19, 2016 and 

granted counsel’s request to withdraw. This timely appeal followed.3 

Appellant presents four issues for our consideration:

I. Whether the PCRA court erred in denying Appellant’s Post 

Conviction Petition as time-barred and not therefore 

entertaining the merits therein, when Appellant invoked 

and established his after-discovered facts exception set 

forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and section 

9545(b)(2)?

II. Whether Appellant is entitled to a [n]ew [t]rial, or 

[r]emand for an evidentiary hearing based upon the 

newspaper article of April 18, 2015, in the Washington 

Post, where the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI 

formally acknowledged flaws in their hair analysis, and 

admitted using incomplete and misleading statistics to 

secure convictions; said tests were conducted in 

Appellant’s trial in 1986, and used as evidence against

him?

____________________________________________

2 Appellant contends he filed an objection to the Rule 907 Notice on January 

6, 2016. Appellant’s Brief at 7. The docket does not reflect the filing of any 

objection or any other document between the date the notice was given and 

the date of the order dismissing Appellant’s petition.

3 The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of 

matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On 

February 22, 2016, the PCRA court filed an Opinion, directing this Court’s 

attention to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 Notice “as the place where the 

reasons for this Opinion may be found.” PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/16 at 1.
J-S64014-16

- 5 -

III. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred as a matter of law in 

denying Appellant’s Motion for DNA testing, file[d] 

December 3, 2015, under 9543.1, where DNA testing 

would establish Appellant’s “actual innocence”?

IV. Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred as a matter of law by 

denying Appellant’s second request for DNA testing when 

the first DNA motion was not fully or properly litigated, and 

where prior comparison tests are not considered 

unreliable?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.4

We begin by setting forth our standard of review. 

Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is 

whether the record supports the PCRA court’s determination and 

whether the PCRA court’s decision is free of legal error. 

Commonwealth v. Phillips, 31 A.3d 317, 319 (Pa. Super. 

2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Berry, 877 A.2d 479, 482 (Pa. 

Super. 2005)). The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed 

unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. 

Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Pa. 

Super. 2001)).

Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

In his first issue, Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding 

Appellant’s petition was time-barred, asserting he invoked and established 

an after-discovered facts exception under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and within the 

time constraints of § 9545(b)(2). As this Court has reiterated, “The 

timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional threshold and may not be 

____________________________________________

4 Appellant has not challenged the adequacy of PCRA counsel’s “no-merit” 

letter. Therefore, that issue is not before this Court. See Commonwealth 

v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875, 880 (Pa. 2009).
J-S64014-16

- 6 -

disregarded in order to reach the merits of the claims raised in a PCRA

petition that is untimely.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Murray, 753 A.2d 

201, 203 (Pa. 2000)). 

In Lawson, we explained: 

Effective January 16, 1996, the PCRA was amended to require a 

petitioner to file any PCRA petition within one year of the date

the judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9545(b)(1). A 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.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). . . . 

However, an untimely petition may be received when the 

petition alleges, and the petitioner proves, that any of the three 

limited exceptions to the time for filing the petition, set forth at 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), are met. A petition 

invoking one of these exceptions must be filed within sixty days 

of the date the claim could first have been presented. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). In order to be entitled to the exceptions 

to the PCRA’s one-year filing deadline, “the petitioner must plead 

and prove specific facts that demonstrate his claim was raised 

within the sixty-day time frame” under section 9545(b)(2). 

Carr, 768 A.2d at 1167.

Id. at 4-5.

As reflected above, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence on April 25, 2001 and our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s 

petition for allowance of appeal on December 4, 2001. Therefore, his 

judgment of sentence became final 90 days later, on March 3, 2002, the 

deadline for filing a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 

U.S.Sup.Ct. Rule 13. In accordance with § 9545(b)(1) and absent any 

applicable exception, Appellant’s deadline for filing his PCRA petition was 
J-S64014-16

- 7 -

March 3, 2003. The instant petition, filed on May 29, 2015, is patently 

untimely and we may not consider its merits, if any, unless petitioner asserts 

one of the timeliness exceptions and files his petition within sixty days of the 

date the exception could be asserted. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). Here, 

Appellant invoked the exception recognized in § 9545(b)(1)(ii), i.e., that 

facts were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained by the 

exercise of due diligence. He contends he filed his petition in accordance 

with § 9545(b)(2) by filing the petition within sixty days of publication of the 

Washington Post article relating to faulty DNA hair analysis. 

Appellant’s assertion that he could not have been aware of the DNA 

hair analysis issue prior to April 18, 2015 is belied by his own exhibits to his 

petition that included a March 2012 article and a July 2013 article dealing 

with the same issue. Further, as the PCRA court noted:

In 2002, [Appellant] filed a PCRA petition raising only the issue 

of DNA testing as it related to the hair sample recovered by the 

police. [Appellant] was obviously on notice as to the availability 

of DNA testing at that time and therefore could have requested 

testing on all the other evidence in the case. As [Appellant] did 

not seek DNA testing for any other evidence previously, it is this 

[c]ourt’s opinion the [Appellant’s] current request to have 

additional evidence DNA tested is time-barred and the [c]ourt 

lacks the jurisdiction to address this request. 

PCRA Court Rule 907 Notice, 12/18/15, at 3 (emphasis in original). We find 

the record supports the PCRA court’s determination on the issue of 

timeliness and that its decision is free of legal error. Finding no error in the 

PCRA court’s determination, we shall not disturb it. 
J-S64014-16

- 8 -

In his second issue, Appellant contends he is entitled to a new trial or 

remand for evidentiary hearing based on the Washington Post article. In 

light of our conclusion that the PCRA court properly dismissed Appellant’s 

PCRA petition as untimely filed, Appellant’s second issue is moot.

Appellant next argues that the PCRA court erred by denying his Motion 

for Post Conviction DNA Testing, asserting that DNA testing would establish 

his actual innocence. The PCRA court, having determined the May 29, 2015 

petition was untimely, did not discuss the December 3, 2015 motion 

separately. Because it was clearly a motion for DNA testing filed under 

§ 9543.1 and not a PCRA petition, we shall address it. 

According to PCRA counsel:

Based upon [Appellant’s] desire to expand the number of items 

for which he sought DNA testing, the undersigned requested, 

and was granted by Order of September 30, 2015, additional 

time within which to review the matter so as to determine 

whether [Appellant’s] requests had merit pursuant to the PCRA. 

Thereafter, on November 3, 2015, [Appellant] sent to counsel a 

comprehensive Motion for Post-Conviction DNA Testing. 

[Appellant] directed the undersigned to file the Motion with the 

Court. A copy of the Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

As with the original Petition[] for PCRA Relief, filed May 29, 

2015, the undersigned does not believe that the Motion for PostConviction DNA Testing has merit.

Finley No-Merit Letter, 12/3/15, at 3. Although attached as an exhibit to 

counsel’s no-merit letter, the docket reflects that PCRA counsel separately 

filed the motion on December 14, 2015. However, the PCRA court did not 

consider it as a motion for DNA testing filed in accordance with § 9543.1. 
J-S64014-16

- 9 -

Instead, the court treated the motion as “essentially an amended pro se

[PCRA] petition.” PCRA Court Rule 907 Notice, 12/18/15, at 2 n.3. 

In Commonwealth v. Gacobano, 65 A.3d 416 (Pa. Super. 2013), 

this Court commented:

“Post conviction DNA testing does not directly create an 

exception to § 9545’s one-year time bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543.1. Rather it allows for a convicted individual to first 

obtain DNA testing which could then be used within a PCRA 

petition to establish new facts in order to satisfy the 

requirements of an exception under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2). 

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1(f)(1).” Accord Commonwealth v. 

Scarborough, [] 64 A.3d 602, 609 ([Pa.] 2013) (“the litigation 

of a motion for DNA testing under Section 9543.1 is, in 

substance, a wholly separate proceeding from litigation of a 

PCRA petition.”); Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44, 50 

(Pa. Super. 2011) (“This Court has consistently held the oneyear jurisdictional time bar of the PCRA does not apply to 

motions for DNA testing under Section 9543.1.”). While the 

PCRA petition filed in this case comingled the DNA test request 

with other PCRA-based requests for relief, the two forms of relief 

must be bifurcated and the DNA testing issue is to be addressed 

first. Williams, supra. 

Id. at 419 (footnote omitted).

In accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1 addressing 

post conviction DNA testing, a convicted individual serving a term of 

imprisonment may file a written motion seeking DNA testing of specific 

evidence related to the prosecution resulting in the individual’s conviction. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1(a). Upon receipt of a motion filed pursuant to 

§ 9543.1(a), the court is to, inter alia, notify the Commonwealth and afford 

the Commonwealth an opportunity to respond. § 9543.1(b). The court 

proceeds to determine whether the requirements of § 9543.1(c) are satisfied 
J-S64014-16

- 10 -

and then issues an order for testing or explains why testing is not 

warranted. § 9543.1(c) and (d). Those procedures were not followed in 

light of the fact the PCRA court treated the motion as an amended PCRA 

petition.

However, even if the PCRA court addressed the motion as a 

§ 9543.1(a) motion, Appellant would not be entitled to relief based on the 

“law of the case” doctrine. As this Court explained in Gacobano,

The law of the case doctrine refers to a family of rules which 

embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of 

a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by 

another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the 

earlier phases of the matter. . . . The various rules which make 

up the law of the case doctrine serve not only to promote the 

goal of judicial economy . . . but also operate (1) to protect the 

settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of 

decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a 

single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined 

administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.

Gacobano, 65 A.3d at 419-20 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCandless, 

880 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2005) (additional citation omitted)). 

Therefore, under law of the case doctrine, 

[W]hen an appellate court has considered and decided a 

question submitted to it upon appeal, it will not, upon a 

subsequent appeal on another phase of the case, reverse its 

previous ruling even though convinced it was erroneous. This 

rule has been adopted and frequently applied in our own State. 

It is not, however, inflexible. It does not have the finality of the 

doctrine of res judicata. “The prior ruling may have been 

followed as the law of the case but there is a difference between 

such adherence and res judicata; one directs discretion, and the 

other supercedes (sic) it and compels judgment. In other words, 

in one it is a question of power, in the other of submission.” The 

rule of the “law of the case” is one largely of convenience and 
J-S64014-16

- 11 -

public policy, both of which are served by stability in judicial 

decisions, and it must be accommodated to the needs of justice 

by the discriminating exercise of judicial power.

Id. at 420 (quoting McCandless, 880 A.2d at 1268 (additional citation 

omitted)).

As reflected in the PCRA court’s factual and procedural summary set 

forth above, Appellant filed a second PCRA petition on May 14, 2002 “raising 

only the issue of DNA testing as it related to the hair sample recovered by 

the police.” PCRA Court Rule 907 Notice, 12/18/15, at 3 (emphasis in 

original). The PCRA court dismissed the petition on December 16, 2002, 

noting inter alia that DNA testing is appropriate when a conviction rests 

largely on identification and DNA technology could definitely establish an 

accused’s innocence. PCRA Court Opinion, 4/15/03, 18-20 (citing 

Commonwealth v. Godschalk, 679 A.2d 1295, 1297 (Pa. Super. 1997) 

(additional citations omitted)). The PCRA court explained that testing could 

not positively exonerate Appellant, unlike the appellant in Godschalk, 

noting that DNA results could not exclude Appellant from having committed 

the crime and, therefore, would not conclusively exculpate Appellant from 

having committed a murder to which he confessed and during the 

commission of which he was positively identified. Id.5

____________________________________________

5 Although Appellant’s 2002 sought DNA testing of only hair recovered by 

police, the rationale applied to denial of the 2002 petition is equally 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S64014-16

- 12 -

Appellant filed an appeal to this Court. On October 20, 2003, we 

affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s second PCRA petition. On May 11, 

2004, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Steward, 839 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal 

denied, 849 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 2004). Therefore, applying the law of the case 

doctrine, Appellant’s third issue claiming error in relation to his petition for 

DNA testing must fail. Consequently, Appellant’s fourth issue is rendered 

moot.

Our review confirms that the record supports the PCRA court’s 

dismissal of Appellant’s third PCRA petition. Because the PCRA court’s 

decision is free of legal error, we shall not disturb it.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/22/2016

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

applicable to Appellant’s request for comprehensive DNA testing of 

numerous pieces of evidence.
J-S64014-16

- 13 -