J-S15003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RAUL DELAROSA 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2188 EDA 2023

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 3, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2024

Appellant, Raul DeLarosa, appeals from the order entered on August 3, 

2023, which denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act 

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

On January 22, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to 

third-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation.

1

 During 

the plea colloquy, Appellant admitted to the following:

[In] June [] 2010, [Appellant] requested the assistance of 

[co-defendant Hector Rivera] . . . to assist him in the killing 

of the victim in this case, Candido Hidalgo [(“the Victim”)].

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, and 902(a), respectively.
J-S15003-24

- 2 -

Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another [co-defendant] in this 

case by the name of Jose Padilla . . . to also assist in the

killing of [the Victim].

On . . . [June 13, 2010], with the assistance of [Appellant], 

Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives[,] waited 

in the back of [the Victim’s Philadelphia] property. . . . Mr. 

Rivera and Mr. Padilla waited . . . between 3:00 a.m. and 

4:00 a.m. on that date . . . [and] when the [Victim] . . .

arrived home, they attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly 

with knives. And they stabbed him in the area of the face, 

the neck, the hands, and the chest.

Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location. Police and medics 

were called by [the Victim’s] wife and daughter who were 

home at the time. Medics arrived and pronounced [the 

Victim] dead at 4:07 a.m.

[The Victim’s] body was transported to the Medical 

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by 

forensic pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that 

the cause of [the Victim’s] death was multiple stab and incise 

wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.

Subsequent to the killing of [the Victim, Appellant] did make 

arrangements to pay Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of 

dollars for their assistance in the killing of [the Victim. 

Appellant] fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the 

murder and had to be extradited back here to be here for this 

trial.

. . .

[The] evidence would show that [Appellant and the Victim]

were involved in a drug dealing business together. They were 

transporting large quantities of drugs from Mexico 

throughout the East Coast.

N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/22/18, at 20-22.

On February 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the 

negotiated, aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison for his convictions. 
J-S15003-24

- 3 -

N.T. Sentencing, 2/20/18, at 19. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence on January 31, 2019. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 209 A.3d 543 

(Pa. Super. 2019) (non-precedential decision).

On March 26, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and 

the PCRA court later appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the 

proceedings. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s first PCRA petition on 

August 12, 2019 and we affirmed the PCRA court’s order on December 14, 

2020. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 245 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2020) 

(non-precedential decision).

On May 1, 2023, Appellant filed the current PCRA petition, which 

constitutes Appellant’s second petition for post-conviction collateral relief

under the PCRA. Within the petition, Appellant claimed:

On November 20, 2022, while at the prison library, the law 

clerk provided [Appellant] with a copy of a publication titled 

Right To Be Free, which documented an extensive list of 

Philadelphia Police Officers who had been “accused, charged, 

convicted, and/or disciplined for alleged actions of 

misconduct.”

With the assistance of the law clerk, the names of these police 

officers were compared to the few pages of the discovery file 

[Appellant] has in his possession. This search revealed the 

following officers accused or convicted of misconduct were 

also involved in the investigation of [Appellant’s] case: “John 

Verrecchio, Ohmarr Jenkins, Thomas Gaul, Angela Gaines, 

Ronald Jenkins, Philip Nordo, Carl Watkins,” and “Holmes.”

On February 12, 2023, [Appellant] received (from the 

prison’s law clerk) what he believes to be portions of Officer 

Nordo’s disciplinary file that the law clerk obtained from 

another prisoner. This information, which was never 

disclosed to defense counsel, reveals that Officer Nordo had 
J-S15003-24

- 4 -

committed instances of police misconduct before 

[Appellant’s] arrest, and was suspended or under 

investigation at the time of [Appellant’s] guilty plea.

[Appellant] submits that[] Hector Rivera, the only witness 

linking him to this crime[,] was interviewed by [officers] 

Nordo, Verrecchio, and Gaul. At this interview, Rivera 

allegedly confessed to committing the murder ordered by 

[Appellant], and set in motion via a phone call.

In an August 5, 2014 sworn affidavit, based on this interview, 

Officer Verrecchio claimed to be in possession of phone 

records linking a call from [Appellant] to Rivera at the time 

of the murder. These phone records, however, cannot be 

located. While [Appellant] knew he did not call Rivera when 

he pled guilty, his attorney told him the police had records 

that demonstrate a call was made. Had [Appellant] known 

at the time of his guilty plea that Officer Verrecchio was 

dishonest, he would not have accepted his attorney’s word 

that such phone records existed, and further, rejected the 

Commonwealth’s offer to plead guilty.

Appellant’s Second PCRA Petition, 5/1/23, at 1-3 (citations and numbering 

omitted).

According to Appellant, even though his PCRA petition was facially 

untimely, his claims fell within the newly-discovered fact and governmental 

interference exceptions to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar. Appellant requested 

that the PCRA court “vacate his conviction, allow him to withdraw his guilty 

plea, and invoke his right to a jury trial.” Id. at 3.

On May 17, 2023, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice that it 

intended to dismiss his petition in 20 days, without holding a hearing, as the 

petition was untimely. PCRA Court Notice, 5/17/23, at 1; see also

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant responded to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice 

with an amended petition that expounded upon his original claims. See
J-S15003-24

- 5 -

Appellant’s Rule 907 Response, 7/10/23, at 1-29. The PCRA court finally 

dismissed Appellant’s second PCRA petition on August 3, 2023 and Appellant 

filed a timely notice of appeal. See PCRA Court Order, 8/3/23, at 1. Appellant 

raises the following claims on appeal:

1. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his claim that his 

PCRA filings below, within [one] year of his discovery of 

evidence revealing the homicide detectives in his case 

engaged in serious misconduct, satisfied the jurisdictional 

requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and (ii)?

2. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his Brady[2] claim 

where, after pleading guilty and petitioning to withdraw [his] 

plea, Appellant presented evidence suppressed by the 

Commonwealth, revealing that both the Commonwealth and 

trial court knew that the homicide detectives in his case were 

engaging in serious misconduct which if disclosed, would 

have resulted in Appellant’s rejection of the Commonwealth’s 

plea offer?

3. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his after-discovered 

evidence claim where, after pleading guilty, Appellant 

presented evidence – suppressed by the Commonwealth –

after being alerted to and diligently searching for such 

evidence, revealing that all homicide detectives in his case, 

including the affiant himself, engaged in misconduct that 

included falsifying witness statements to support affidavits of 

probable cause?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified 

record, and the opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Barbara 

A. McDermott. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, 

____________________________________________

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
J-S15003-24

- 6 -

for the reasons expressed in Judge McDermott’s August 3, 2023 opinion. 

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge McDermott’s opinion and adopt it 

as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this 

ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge McDermott’s August 3, 

2023 opinion.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 6/28/2024
Circulated 05/17/2024 03:36 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

RAUL DELAROSA 

CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 

FILED 

., 

ALIE 0 3 2023 

PCRA Unit 

CP Criminal Listings 

McDermott, J. 

Procedural History 

ORDER AND OPINION 

August 3, 2023 

On March 10, 2017, the Petitioner, Raul Delarosa, was arrested and charged with Murder 

and related offenses. On January 22, 2018, the Petitioner appeared before this Court and entered 

into a negotiated guilty plea to Third-Degree Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, and 

Criminal Solicitation of Murder, At the Defendant's request, sentencing was deferred. On 

February 13, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea. Following a 

hearing on February 20, 2018, this Court denied his Motion. That same day, this Court imposed 

the negotiated penalties of fifteen to thirty years of imprisonment for Third-Degree Murder, and 

concurrent sentences of fifteen to thirty years of imprisonment for Conspiracy to Commit 

Murder and Criminal Solicitation of Murder, for a total sentence of fifteen to thirty years of 

imprisonment.' 

The remaining charges were nolle prossed 

I 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

RAUL DELAROSA 

CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 

FILED 

., 

ALIE 0 3 2023 

PCRA Unit 

CP Criminal Listings 

McDermott, J. 

Procedural History 

ORDER AND OPINION 

August 3, 2023 

On March 10, 2017, the Petitioner, Raul Delarosa, was arrested and charged with Murder 

and related offenses. On January 22, 2018, the Petitioner appeared before this Court and entered 

into a negotiated guilty plea to Third-Degree Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, and 

Criminal Solicitation of Murder, At the Defendant's request, sentencing was deferred. On 

February 13, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea. Following a 

hearing on February 20, 2018, this Court denied his Motion. That same day, this Court imposed 

the negotiated penalties of fifteen to thirty years of imprisonment for Third-Degree Murder, and 

concurrent sentences of fifteen to thirty years of imprisonment for Conspiracy to Commit 

Murder and Criminal Solicitation of Murder, for a total sentence of fifteen to thirty years of 

imprisonment.' 

The remaining charges were nolle prossed 

I 
The Petitioner appealed, and on January 31, 2019, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania 

affirmed his judgment of sentence, The Petitioner did not file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

On March 26, 2019, the Petitioner filed a timely prose Post-Conviction Relief Act 

("PCRA") petition, his first. On May 20, 2019, court-appointed PCRA counsel filed a no-merit 

letter pursuant to Commonwealth ». Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en bane). On May 

30, 2019, after a Grazier hearing, this Court permitted counsel to withdraw, allowed the 

Petitioner to proceed pro se, and determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary.' After an 

evidentiary hearing on August 12, 2019, this Court dismissed the petition. After appellate 

counsel was appointed", the Petitioner appealed, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania 

affirmed this Courts dismissal on December 14, 2020. The Petitioner did not file a Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal. 

On May 1, 2023, the Petitioner filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his second, On 

May 17, 2023, this Court issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim,P. 907. On 

June 5, 2023, this Court granted the Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a 907 

Response and directed him to file a Response no later than July 6, 2023. On July 10, 2023, the 

Petitioner filed an untimely 907 Response 

On January 22, 2018, the Petitioner admitted his guilt to the following facts: 

[I]n June of2010, [the Petitioner], Raul Delarosa, also known 

as Javier Cepeda, also known as Edwin Pichardo, requested the 

assistance of a codefendant in this case, Hector Rivera, PID No. 

Comuomwealth • Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). 

' At the Grazier hearing, this Court noted that it had not yet received the Finley letter, but found that an evidentiary 

hearing was necessary to address Petitioner's allegations of plea counsel's ineffectiveness in connection with the 

entry of his guilty plea. 

'At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner requested that counsel be appointed for his appeal. 

2 

The Petitioner appealed, and on January 31, 2019, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania 

affirmed his judgment of sentence, The Petitioner did not file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

On March 26, 2019, the Petitioner filed a timely prose Post-Conviction Relief Act 

("PCRA") petition, his first. On May 20, 2019, court-appointed PCRA counsel filed a no-merit 

letter pursuant to Commonwealth ». Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en bane). On May 

30, 2019, after a Grazier hearing, this Court permitted counsel to withdraw, allowed the 

Petitioner to proceed pro se, and determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary.' After an 

evidentiary hearing on August 12, 2019, this Court dismissed the petition. After appellate 

counsel was appointed", the Petitioner appealed, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania 

affirmed this Courts dismissal on December 14, 2020. The Petitioner did not file a Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal. 

On May 1, 2023, the Petitioner filed the instant pro se PCRA petition, his second, On 

May 17, 2023, this Court issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim,P. 907. On 

June 5, 2023, this Court granted the Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a 907 

Response and directed him to file a Response no later than July 6, 2023. On July 10, 2023, the 

Petitioner filed an untimely 907 Response 

On January 22, 2018, the Petitioner admitted his guilt to the following facts: 

[I]n June of2010, [the Petitioner], Raul Delarosa, also known 

as Javier Cepeda, also known as Edwin Pichardo, requested the 

assistance of a codefendant in this case, Hector Rivera, PID No. 

Comuomwealth • Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). 

' At the Grazier hearing, this Court noted that it had not yet received the Finley letter, but found that an evidentiary 

hearing was necessary to address Petitioner's allegations of plea counsel's ineffectiveness in connection with the 

entry of his guilty plea. 

'At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner requested that counsel be appointed for his appeal. 

2 
974687. He asked Mr. Rivera to assist him in the killing of the 

[decedent] in this case, Candido Hidalgo. 

Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another codefendant in this case 

by the name of Jose Padilla, PID No. 946658, to also assist in the 

killing of Mr. Candido Hidalgo. 

On the date of... June 13th of 2010, with the assistance of[the 

Petitioner], Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives 

waited in the back of [the decedent]'s property, which is located at 

6120 Cottage Street in Philadelphia. Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla 

waited at approximately between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on that 

date, June 13, 2010. And when the [decedent] arrived home, they 

attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly with knives. And they 

stabbed him in the area of the face, the neck, the hands, and the 

chest. 

Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location, Police and medics 

were called by [the decedent]'s wife and daughter who were home 

at the time, Medics arrived and pronounced [the decedent] dead at 

4:07 a.m. 

[The decedent]'s body was transported to the Medical 

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic 

pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that the cause of 

[the decedent]'s death was multiple stab and incise wounds, and 

that the manner of death was homicide. 

Subsequent to the killing of [the decedent], [the Petitioner] did 

make arrangements to pay Mr, Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of 

dollars for their assistance in the killing of Candido Hidalgo. [The 

Petitioner} fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the murder 

and had to be extradited back here to be here for this trial. 

[The Petitioner] and [the decedent] were involved in a drug 

dealing business together... transporting large quantities of drugs 

from Mexico throughout the East Coast. 

N.T. 1/22/2018 at 20-21. 

Discussion 

In his second PCRA petition, the Petitioner raises one claim for review, alleging that the 

Commonwealth committed a Brady? violation by failing to disclose allegations of misconduct 

• Brady ». Maryland, 373 U.$. 83 (1963) 

3 

--- 

974687. He asked Mr. Rivera to assist him in the killing of the 

[decedent] in this case, Candido Hidalgo. 

Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another codefendant in this case 

by the name of Jose Padilla, PID No. 946658, to also assist in the 

killing of Mr. Candido Hidalgo. 

On the date of... June 13th of 2010, with the assistance of[the 

Petitioner], Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives 

waited in the back of [the decedent]'s property, which is located at 

6120 Cottage Street in Philadelphia. Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla 

waited at approximately between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on that 

date, June 13, 2010. And when the [decedent] arrived home, they 

attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly with knives. And they 

stabbed him in the area of the face, the neck, the hands, and the 

chest. 

Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location, Police and medics 

were called by [the decedent]'s wife and daughter who were home 

at the time, Medics arrived and pronounced [the decedent] dead at 

4:07 a.m. 

[The decedent]'s body was transported to the Medical 

Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic 

pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that the cause of 

[the decedent]'s death was multiple stab and incise wounds, and 

that the manner of death was homicide. 

Subsequent to the killing of [the decedent], [the Petitioner] did 

make arrangements to pay Mr, Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of 

dollars for their assistance in the killing of Candido Hidalgo. [The 

Petitioner} fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the murder 

and had to be extradited back here to be here for this trial. 

[The Petitioner] and [the decedent] were involved in a drug 

dealing business together... transporting large quantities of drugs 

from Mexico throughout the East Coast. 

N.T. 1/22/2018 at 20-21. 

Discussion 

In his second PCRA petition, the Petitioner raises one claim for review, alleging that the 

Commonwealth committed a Brady? violation by failing to disclose allegations of misconduct 

• Brady ». Maryland, 373 U.$. 83 (1963) 

3 

--- 
against Detectives John Verrecchio, Phillip Nordo, Thomas Gaul, Ohmarr Jenkins, Angela 

Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Carl Watkins, and Holmes° in other cases. 

A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one 

year of the date that the judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C,S. 8 9545(b)(1). "[A] 

judgment 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. Commomwealth ». Nedab, 195 A.3d 957, 960 (Pa. Super. 2018); 

42 Pa.CS. $ 9545(b)(3). A final order of the Superior Court is any order that concludes an 

appeal, and a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania must be 

filed within thirty days after the entry of the Superior Court Order. Pa.R.A.P. 1112; Pa.R.A.P. 

1113. 

The time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, and a trial court cannot 

ignore it in order to reach a petition's merits. Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 

2016) ( citing Commonwealth v, .Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa. 2012)). An untimely petition renders 

the court without jurisdiction to afford relief. Commonwealth • Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa. 

2017), 

The instant petition is facially untimely. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed this 

Court's Judgment of Sentence on January 31, 2019. Therefore, the instant conviction became 

final on March 3, 2019, when the thirty-day period to seek a Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expired. Petitioner had until March 3, 2020 to file a 

timely petition. The instant petition was filed on May 1, 2023, three years, one month, and 

twenty-eight days after the period to seek review expired 

·The Petitioner did not provide a first name for Detective Holmes. 

4 

against Detectives John Verrecchio, Phillip Nordo, Thomas Gaul, Ohmarr Jenkins, Angela 

Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Carl Watkins, and Holmes° in other cases. 

A PCRA petition, including a second or subsequent petition, must be filed within one 

year of the date that the judgment of sentence becomes final. 42 Pa.C,S. 8 9545(b)(1). "[A] 

judgment 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. Commomwealth ». Nedab, 195 A.3d 957, 960 (Pa. Super. 2018); 

42 Pa.CS. $ 9545(b)(3). A final order of the Superior Court is any order that concludes an 

appeal, and a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania must be 

filed within thirty days after the entry of the Superior Court Order. Pa.R.A.P. 1112; Pa.R.A.P. 

1113. 

The time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, and a trial court cannot 

ignore it in order to reach a petition's merits. Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. 

2016) ( citing Commonwealth v, .Jones, 54 A.3d 14, 16 (Pa. 2012)). An untimely petition renders 

the court without jurisdiction to afford relief. Commonwealth • Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 678 (Pa. 

2017), 

The instant petition is facially untimely. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed this 

Court's Judgment of Sentence on January 31, 2019. Therefore, the instant conviction became 

final on March 3, 2019, when the thirty-day period to seek a Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expired. Petitioner had until March 3, 2020 to file a 

timely petition. The instant petition was filed on May 1, 2023, three years, one month, and 

twenty-eight days after the period to seek review expired 

·The Petitioner did not provide a first name for Detective Holmes. 

4 
A PCRA court has jurisdiction to review collateral claims filed beyond the one-year limit 

if a petitioner alleges and proves any of the three limited exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(16-(): 

() 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. $ 9545(b)(1). A petition invoking one of the exceptions must be filed within 

one year of the date the claim could have first been presented, and a petitioner must plead and 

prove that he has met this requirement. Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d 1123, 1125 (Pa. 

2018); 42 Pa.C.S. $ 9545()02). 

The Petitioner alleges that the instant claim falls under the newly-discovered fact and 

government interference exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify for the 

newly-discovered fact exception, a petitioner needs to establish that the facts forming the basis of 

the claim were unknown to him and could not have been obtained by the exercise of due 

diligence, Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017), Due diligence requires that a 

petitioner take reasonable steps to protect his own interests. See Commonwealth v». Sanchez, 204 

A.3d 524, 526 (Pa. Super. 2019) (petitioner failed to explain how the fact that a detective was 

found liable of malicious prosecution in a civil case could not have been ascertained sooner by 

5 

A PCRA court has jurisdiction to review collateral claims filed beyond the one-year limit 

if a petitioner alleges and proves any of the three limited exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(16-(): 

() 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. $ 9545(b)(1). A petition invoking one of the exceptions must be filed within 

one year of the date the claim could have first been presented, and a petitioner must plead and 

prove that he has met this requirement. Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d 1123, 1125 (Pa. 

2018); 42 Pa.C.S. $ 9545()02). 

The Petitioner alleges that the instant claim falls under the newly-discovered fact and 

government interference exceptions to the PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify for the 

newly-discovered fact exception, a petitioner needs to establish that the facts forming the basis of 

the claim were unknown to him and could not have been obtained by the exercise of due 

diligence, Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017), Due diligence requires that a 

petitioner take reasonable steps to protect his own interests. See Commonwealth v». Sanchez, 204 

A.3d 524, 526 (Pa. Super. 2019) (petitioner failed to explain how the fact that a detective was 

found liable of malicious prosecution in a civil case could not have been ascertained sooner by 

5 
the exercise of due diligence). A petitioner must explain why he could not have obtained the new 

fact earlier with the exercise of due diligence to satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception. Id 

In the instant petition, Petitioner claims that, on November 20, 2022, a law clerk in the 

prison law library provided him with a copy of a list of Philadelphia Police Officers accused of 

misconduct entitled "Right To Be Free." Upon reviewing this list, he noticed that it included the 

above-named Detectives, whom he alleges were involved in his case. On February 12, 2023, 

Petitioner allegedly received portions of Detective Nordo's disciplinary file from the law clerk, 

who had obtained the documents from another inmate, In his 907 Response, Petitioner states that 

he received more information from the prison law clerk on June 10th and 20th, 2023 regarding 

additional allegations of misconduct by Detectives Nardo, Gaul, Jenkins, and Verrecchia which 

predate his guilty plea.' 

The Petitioner claims that the allegations of misconduct against the Detectives in other, 

unrelated cases constitute newly-discovered facts as they were never disclosed to him by the 

Commonwealth and they were unknown to him until they were provided to him by the prison 

law clerk. In his 907 Response, Petitioner alleges that he acted diligently once he received 

information from the prison law clerk regarding these allegations. In support, he attached a letter 

he sent to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office on January 12, 2023 requesting information 

related to misconduct or criminal acts committed by the Detectives. See Pet's Exhibit 5. 

Petitioner also attached excerpts from an article entitled "The Homicide Files" that was 

originally published by the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 7, 2021. See Pet.'s Ex. 2. Newspaper 

articles about police misconduct in unrelated cases are insufficient to establish the newlydiscovered fact exception. See Commonwealth • Reeves, 2545 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. June 9, 

7 Petitioner did not include any additional information regarding allegations of misconduct against Detectives 

Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Watkins, or Holmes. 

6 

the exercise of due diligence). A petitioner must explain why he could not have obtained the new 

fact earlier with the exercise of due diligence to satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception. Id 

In the instant petition, Petitioner claims that, on November 20, 2022, a law clerk in the 

prison law library provided him with a copy of a list of Philadelphia Police Officers accused of 

misconduct entitled "Right To Be Free." Upon reviewing this list, he noticed that it included the 

above-named Detectives, whom he alleges were involved in his case. On February 12, 2023, 

Petitioner allegedly received portions of Detective Nordo's disciplinary file from the law clerk, 

who had obtained the documents from another inmate, In his 907 Response, Petitioner states that 

he received more information from the prison law clerk on June 10th and 20th, 2023 regarding 

additional allegations of misconduct by Detectives Nardo, Gaul, Jenkins, and Verrecchia which 

predate his guilty plea.' 

The Petitioner claims that the allegations of misconduct against the Detectives in other, 

unrelated cases constitute newly-discovered facts as they were never disclosed to him by the 

Commonwealth and they were unknown to him until they were provided to him by the prison 

law clerk. In his 907 Response, Petitioner alleges that he acted diligently once he received 

information from the prison law clerk regarding these allegations. In support, he attached a letter 

he sent to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office on January 12, 2023 requesting information 

related to misconduct or criminal acts committed by the Detectives. See Pet's Exhibit 5. 

Petitioner also attached excerpts from an article entitled "The Homicide Files" that was 

originally published by the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 7, 2021. See Pet.'s Ex. 2. Newspaper 

articles about police misconduct in unrelated cases are insufficient to establish the newlydiscovered fact exception. See Commonwealth • Reeves, 2545 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. June 9, 

7 Petitioner did not include any additional information regarding allegations of misconduct against Detectives 

Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Watkins, or Holmes. 

6 
2023) (citing Commonwealth ». Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014)). A newspaper article may 

contain allegations that suggest evidence may exist, "but allegations in the media, whether true 

or false, are no more evidence than allegations in any other out-of-court situation," Id, Therefore, 

newspaper articles referencing misconduct by the Detectives in unrelated cases do not constitute 

newly-discovered facts, and only contain information which could lead a petitioner to discover 

facts. 

Petitioner's claims fail to satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception as he has not 

established that he exercised due diligence in discovering these allegations. Petitioner could have 

discovered the allegations against the Detectives earlier by making a reasonable effort to 

discover them. With regard to the alleged misconduct of Detective Nordo, Petitioner could have 

been obtained this information as early as August 2017, when there were multiple new reports of 

his misconduct and suspension. There were also articles published by the Philadelphia Inquirer 

between 2019 and 2021 for each of the cases where a conviction was vacated based on the 

misconduct of Detective Nordo.8 

In his 907 Response, Petitioner acknowledges that the allegations of misconduct in each 

of the cases he cited were made prior to his guilty plea on January 22, 2018. 9 Petitioner has not. 

offered any reasonable explanation as to why he could not have learned about these allegations 

earlier with the exercise of due diligence. See Commonwealth • Talbert, 281 A.3d 1091 (Pa. 

Super, 2022) (non-precedential decision) (appellant's Brady claim regarding allegations of 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published articles regarding Jamaal Simmons' case on January 21, 2019, Sherman 

McCoy's case on February 22, 2019, Gerald Camp's case on February 28, 2019, James Frazier's case on April I9, 

2019, and Akel Gracia's case on June 4, 2021, The Philadelphia Inquirer also published articles regarding Reafeal 

Fields' case on December 19, 2022 even though bis conviction has not been vacated, and regarding Rafi Dixon's 

case on April 21, 2022 although his conviction was not vacated as a result of Detective Nordo's conduct, but only on 

the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call an alibi witness. 

AI! the allegations of misconduct against the Detectives referenced by the Petitioner in his 907 Response were first 

raised between 2006 and 2017. 

7 

2023) (citing Commonwealth ». Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014)). A newspaper article may 

contain allegations that suggest evidence may exist, "but allegations in the media, whether true 

or false, are no more evidence than allegations in any other out-of-court situation," Id, Therefore, 

newspaper articles referencing misconduct by the Detectives in unrelated cases do not constitute 

newly-discovered facts, and only contain information which could lead a petitioner to discover 

facts. 

Petitioner's claims fail to satisfy the newly-discovered fact exception as he has not 

established that he exercised due diligence in discovering these allegations. Petitioner could have 

discovered the allegations against the Detectives earlier by making a reasonable effort to 

discover them. With regard to the alleged misconduct of Detective Nordo, Petitioner could have 

been obtained this information as early as August 2017, when there were multiple new reports of 

his misconduct and suspension. There were also articles published by the Philadelphia Inquirer 

between 2019 and 2021 for each of the cases where a conviction was vacated based on the 

misconduct of Detective Nordo.8 

In his 907 Response, Petitioner acknowledges that the allegations of misconduct in each 

of the cases he cited were made prior to his guilty plea on January 22, 2018. 9 Petitioner has not. 

offered any reasonable explanation as to why he could not have learned about these allegations 

earlier with the exercise of due diligence. See Commonwealth • Talbert, 281 A.3d 1091 (Pa. 

Super, 2022) (non-precedential decision) (appellant's Brady claim regarding allegations of 

The Philadelphia Inquirer published articles regarding Jamaal Simmons' case on January 21, 2019, Sherman 

McCoy's case on February 22, 2019, Gerald Camp's case on February 28, 2019, James Frazier's case on April I9, 

2019, and Akel Gracia's case on June 4, 2021, The Philadelphia Inquirer also published articles regarding Reafeal 

Fields' case on December 19, 2022 even though bis conviction has not been vacated, and regarding Rafi Dixon's 

case on April 21, 2022 although his conviction was not vacated as a result of Detective Nordo's conduct, but only on 

the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call an alibi witness. 

AI! the allegations of misconduct against the Detectives referenced by the Petitioner in his 907 Response were first 

raised between 2006 and 2017. 

7 
misconduct by Detectives Nordo, Gaul, and Verrecchio in unrelated cases untimely where 

appellant did not explain why he could not have teamed those facts earlier by the exercise of due 

diligence when the unrelated cases preceded his petition by several years). 

Petitioner failed to detail any efforts he made to discover these allegations prior to 

November 2022, which was over four years and nine months after he pled guilty. Instead of 

providing details about his efforts, Petitioner argues that he was unable to discover these 

allegations prior to November 2022 because he was limited by his incarceration and the fact that 

he primarily speaks Spanish. 

Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, Petitioner must still plead and prove that the facts 

could not have been obtained by the exercise of due diligence even though he is incarcerated and 

the public record presumption has been eliminated. Petitioner cannot merely claim that he was 

unable to take any action to discover these facts as a result of his incarceration. Petitioner was 

represented by counsel for much of his incarceration, specifically prior to his preliminary 

hearing, throughout his plea and sentencing, on direct appeal, and during his first PCRA petition 

and subsequent appeal, but still failed to take any action to discover these allegations. 

While the Petitioner's primary language is Spanish, this does not absolve him of his 

burden to plead and prove that he exercised due diligence. Petitioner cites no cases in support 

which have found that a different standard applies for non-English speaking petitioners. The fact 

that the Petitioner primarily speaks Spanish did not hamper his ability to discover these 

allegations. The Petitioner was clearly capable of obtaining this information with the exercise of 

due diligence since he has, in fact, accessed this information and relied on it in submitting 

extensive pleadings to this Court. 

8 

misconduct by Detectives Nordo, Gaul, and Verrecchio in unrelated cases untimely where 

appellant did not explain why he could not have teamed those facts earlier by the exercise of due 

diligence when the unrelated cases preceded his petition by several years). 

Petitioner failed to detail any efforts he made to discover these allegations prior to 

November 2022, which was over four years and nine months after he pled guilty. Instead of 

providing details about his efforts, Petitioner argues that he was unable to discover these 

allegations prior to November 2022 because he was limited by his incarceration and the fact that 

he primarily speaks Spanish. 

Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, Petitioner must still plead and prove that the facts 

could not have been obtained by the exercise of due diligence even though he is incarcerated and 

the public record presumption has been eliminated. Petitioner cannot merely claim that he was 

unable to take any action to discover these facts as a result of his incarceration. Petitioner was 

represented by counsel for much of his incarceration, specifically prior to his preliminary 

hearing, throughout his plea and sentencing, on direct appeal, and during his first PCRA petition 

and subsequent appeal, but still failed to take any action to discover these allegations. 

While the Petitioner's primary language is Spanish, this does not absolve him of his 

burden to plead and prove that he exercised due diligence. Petitioner cites no cases in support 

which have found that a different standard applies for non-English speaking petitioners. The fact 

that the Petitioner primarily speaks Spanish did not hamper his ability to discover these 

allegations. The Petitioner was clearly capable of obtaining this information with the exercise of 

due diligence since he has, in fact, accessed this information and relied on it in submitting 

extensive pleadings to this Court. 

8 
Petitioner's language has not previously limited his ability to access information, submit 

pleadings, or represent himself in this case. Petitioner represented himself on direct appeal in 

Superior Court after his appellate counsel filed an Anders! Brief. He has filed two pro se PCRA 

petitions, and when this Court appointed counsel for his first PCRA petition, he objected and 

requested to proceed pro se with PCRA counsel appointed as stand-by counsel. After a Grazier 

hcaring wherein this Court determined that an evidentiary hearni g was necessary despite 

counsel's Finley letter, Petitioner was permitted to proceed pro se. This Court then conducted an 

evidentiary hearing where the Petitioner represented himself with an interpreter present. Based 

on the record and pleadings before this Court, Petitioner could have discovered the allegations 

with the exercise of due diligence despite speaking Spanish, but has not pied that he did, in fact, 

take any action whatsoever to discover these allegations, 

Petitioner's Brady claim also fails to satisfy the government interference exception to the 

PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify for the government interference exception, a petitioner 

needs to establish that his failure to previously raise the claim was the result of interference by 

government officials, and the information could not have been obtained by the exercise of due 

diligence. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 168 A,3d 97, 106 (Pa, 2017) (citing Commonwealth 

v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa, 2008)). 

Petitioner has failed to aver any facts which establish that his failure to previously raise 

this claim was the result of government interference or that he exercised due diligence, as 

discussed above. He did not provide any details about any attempts he made to obtain this 

information prior to November 2022 and he did not assert that he ever requested information 

from the Commonwealth related to allegations of misconduct by the above-named Detectives 

See Anders • California, 386 U.S, 738 (1967); see also Commonwealth MeClendon, 434 A,2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), 

9 

Petitioner's language has not previously limited his ability to access information, submit 

pleadings, or represent himself in this case. Petitioner represented himself on direct appeal in 

Superior Court after his appellate counsel filed an Anders! Brief. He has filed two pro se PCRA 

petitions, and when this Court appointed counsel for his first PCRA petition, he objected and 

requested to proceed pro se with PCRA counsel appointed as stand-by counsel. After a Grazier 

hcaring wherein this Court determined that an evidentiary hearni g was necessary despite 

counsel's Finley letter, Petitioner was permitted to proceed pro se. This Court then conducted an 

evidentiary hearing where the Petitioner represented himself with an interpreter present. Based 

on the record and pleadings before this Court, Petitioner could have discovered the allegations 

with the exercise of due diligence despite speaking Spanish, but has not pied that he did, in fact, 

take any action whatsoever to discover these allegations, 

Petitioner's Brady claim also fails to satisfy the government interference exception to the 

PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify for the government interference exception, a petitioner 

needs to establish that his failure to previously raise the claim was the result of interference by 

government officials, and the information could not have been obtained by the exercise of due 

diligence. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 168 A,3d 97, 106 (Pa, 2017) (citing Commonwealth 

v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1268 (Pa, 2008)). 

Petitioner has failed to aver any facts which establish that his failure to previously raise 

this claim was the result of government interference or that he exercised due diligence, as 

discussed above. He did not provide any details about any attempts he made to obtain this 

information prior to November 2022 and he did not assert that he ever requested information 

from the Commonwealth related to allegations of misconduct by the above-named Detectives 

See Anders • California, 386 U.S, 738 (1967); see also Commonwealth MeClendon, 434 A,2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), 

9 
before it was provided to him by the prison law clerk. See Talbert, 281 A,3d 1091;see also 

Commonwealth • Holman, 2490 EDA 2021, at 5 (Pa. Super. Oct. 6, 2022) (non-precedential 

decision) (bald assertions that due diligence could not have led to discovery of allegations of 

misconduct by Detectives James Pitts and Ronald Dove are insufficient to establish timeliness of 

Brady claim). 

Contrary to the Petitioner's claims in his 907 Response, the due diligence requirement 

does apply to the government interference exception. There has never been a finding by any 

court that the due diligence requirement to establish a timeliness exception under the PCRA 

violates the U.S. Constitution or any related federal case law. The due diligence requirement for 

the government interference exception is imposed on petitioners through Section 9545(b)(2). See 

Commonwealth • Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008) (Section 9545(b)(2) "requires a 

petitioner to plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been 

obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence"). The Superior Court has explained that, 

even assuming the failure to disclose information was a Brady violation, petitioners are not 

entitled 1.o an indefinite period to raise the claim by invocation of the government interference 

exception. Commonwealth v. Smith, 194 A.3d 126, 133 (Pa. Super. 2018), The Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court has maintained that a petitioner must establish due diligence to satisfy the 

government interference exception to the PCRA time bar. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 

1124, 1144 (Pa. 2020); see also Commonwealth • Williams, 168 A.3d 97, 106 (Pa. 2017). 

While this Court lacks jurisdiction, for the benefit of any future proceedings, this Court 

will address the merits of Petitioner's claim. After reviewing the instant petition, this Court finds 

that, even if the instant petition was timely, his claim is without merit and does not entitle him to 

relief. 

10 

before it was provided to him by the prison law clerk. See Talbert, 281 A,3d 1091;see also 

Commonwealth • Holman, 2490 EDA 2021, at 5 (Pa. Super. Oct. 6, 2022) (non-precedential 

decision) (bald assertions that due diligence could not have led to discovery of allegations of 

misconduct by Detectives James Pitts and Ronald Dove are insufficient to establish timeliness of 

Brady claim). 

Contrary to the Petitioner's claims in his 907 Response, the due diligence requirement 

does apply to the government interference exception. There has never been a finding by any 

court that the due diligence requirement to establish a timeliness exception under the PCRA 

violates the U.S. Constitution or any related federal case law. The due diligence requirement for 

the government interference exception is imposed on petitioners through Section 9545(b)(2). See 

Commonwealth • Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (Pa. 2008) (Section 9545(b)(2) "requires a 

petitioner to plead and prove that the information on which he relies could not have been 

obtained earlier, despite the exercise of due diligence"). The Superior Court has explained that, 

even assuming the failure to disclose information was a Brady violation, petitioners are not 

entitled 1.o an indefinite period to raise the claim by invocation of the government interference 

exception. Commonwealth v. Smith, 194 A.3d 126, 133 (Pa. Super. 2018), The Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court has maintained that a petitioner must establish due diligence to satisfy the 

government interference exception to the PCRA time bar. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 

1124, 1144 (Pa. 2020); see also Commonwealth • Williams, 168 A.3d 97, 106 (Pa. 2017). 

While this Court lacks jurisdiction, for the benefit of any future proceedings, this Court 

will address the merits of Petitioner's claim. After reviewing the instant petition, this Court finds 

that, even if the instant petition was timely, his claim is without merit and does not entitle him to 

relief. 

10 
To succeed on a Brady claim, a defendant must establish that: (I) the evidence was 

suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence at issue was 

favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it. impeaches; and, (3) 

prejudice ensued. Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing 

Commonwealth • Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 607 (Pa. 2013)). A Brady violation arises where the 

suppressed evidence is material to guilt, i.e., where there is a reasonable probability that, had that 

evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. 

Commonwealth • Cousar, 154 A.3d 287,301 (Pa. 2017). A reasonable probability of a different 

outcome is demonstrated when the government's suppression of evidence undermines confidence 

in the result of the trial. Id. (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)). 

The Petitioner's Brady claim fails as he cannot establish prejudice. Even assuming that 

the evidence was suppressed and favorable to him, Petitioner cannot demonstrate prejudice as, 

even if the Commonwealth had disclosed these allegations, there is not a reasonable probability 

that the result of the proceedings would have been different. Petitioner has failed to show that the 

above-named Detectives committed misconduct in his case and the allegations of misconduct ill 

unrelated cases do not establish that his guilty plea was entered into involuntarily, unknowingly, 

or unintelligently. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 260 A.3d 176 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal denied, 273 

A.3d 509 (Pa. 2022) ("A petitioner can only assert a meritorious claim for PCRA relief by 

demonstrating a link between an officer's misconduct and the petitioner's own case."). 

There is no evidence that the Detectives coerced the statements or testimony of his codefendants, Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, or his ex-wife, Fresa Pichardo. None of the witnesses 

has ever claimed that their statements to police were false or coerced, and Petitioner attached no 

certifications or affidavits from any of the witnesses in his case in which they recanted their 

11 

To succeed on a Brady claim, a defendant must establish that: (I) the evidence was 

suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; (2) the evidence at issue was 

favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it. impeaches; and, (3) 

prejudice ensued. Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing 

Commonwealth • Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 607 (Pa. 2013)). A Brady violation arises where the 

suppressed evidence is material to guilt, i.e., where there is a reasonable probability that, had that 

evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. 

Commonwealth • Cousar, 154 A.3d 287,301 (Pa. 2017). A reasonable probability of a different 

outcome is demonstrated when the government's suppression of evidence undermines confidence 

in the result of the trial. Id. (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)). 

The Petitioner's Brady claim fails as he cannot establish prejudice. Even assuming that 

the evidence was suppressed and favorable to him, Petitioner cannot demonstrate prejudice as, 

even if the Commonwealth had disclosed these allegations, there is not a reasonable probability 

that the result of the proceedings would have been different. Petitioner has failed to show that the 

above-named Detectives committed misconduct in his case and the allegations of misconduct ill 

unrelated cases do not establish that his guilty plea was entered into involuntarily, unknowingly, 

or unintelligently. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 260 A.3d 176 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal denied, 273 

A.3d 509 (Pa. 2022) ("A petitioner can only assert a meritorious claim for PCRA relief by 

demonstrating a link between an officer's misconduct and the petitioner's own case."). 

There is no evidence that the Detectives coerced the statements or testimony of his codefendants, Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, or his ex-wife, Fresa Pichardo. None of the witnesses 

has ever claimed that their statements to police were false or coerced, and Petitioner attached no 

certifications or affidavits from any of the witnesses in his case in which they recanted their 

11 
statements or alleged that police committed misconduct in obtaining their statements. At best, 

Petitioner's claims of coercion are merely speculative. 

There is also no cvidence that the Detectives lied about the existence of phone records, 

which showed a call from Petitioner to Rivera shortly before the murder. Petitioner's claim that 

these records do not exist is contradicted by the search warrant for the phone records from May 

2012 and the affidavit of probable cause to arrest the Petitioner, which states that the information 

provided by a witness was corroborated by phone records. In his statement and testimony, Rivera 

confirmed that he received a call from Petitioner shortly before the murder. In the instant 

petition, Petitioner admits that his plea counsel told him that the police had records which 

established that there was a call made between Rivera and Petitioner around the time of the 

murder. 

Even if these records do not exist, it is not likely that the result of the proceedings would 

have been different. Both of the Petitioner's co-defendants provided statements to the police 

which establish that Petitioner paid Rivera to murder the decedent. Petitioner's ex-wife also 

provided information which showed that Petitioner provided a large sum of money to Rivera in 

the days following the murder. Additionally, at his guilty plea and at sentencing, Petitioner 

admitted to speaking with Rivera to hire him to murder the decedent and clarified that the 

decision to kill the decedent was ultimately not his, but the criminal organization with which he 

was associated, Petitioner also apologized to the family of the decedent, who was present in the 

courtroom at his guilty plea. N.T. 1/22/2018 at 12, 20-21, 32-34; N.T. 2/20/2018 at 17-23. 

Petitioner cannot show prejudice amounting to manifest injustice as he entered into his 

plea voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently, as previously decided by this Court and Superior 

Court. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/5/18, at 3-6; see also Commonwealth • Delarosa, 707 EDA 

12 

statements or alleged that police committed misconduct in obtaining their statements. At best, 

Petitioner's claims of coercion are merely speculative. 

There is also no cvidence that the Detectives lied about the existence of phone records, 

which showed a call from Petitioner to Rivera shortly before the murder. Petitioner's claim that 

these records do not exist is contradicted by the search warrant for the phone records from May 

2012 and the affidavit of probable cause to arrest the Petitioner, which states that the information 

provided by a witness was corroborated by phone records. In his statement and testimony, Rivera 

confirmed that he received a call from Petitioner shortly before the murder. In the instant 

petition, Petitioner admits that his plea counsel told him that the police had records which 

established that there was a call made between Rivera and Petitioner around the time of the 

murder. 

Even if these records do not exist, it is not likely that the result of the proceedings would 

have been different. Both of the Petitioner's co-defendants provided statements to the police 

which establish that Petitioner paid Rivera to murder the decedent. Petitioner's ex-wife also 

provided information which showed that Petitioner provided a large sum of money to Rivera in 

the days following the murder. Additionally, at his guilty plea and at sentencing, Petitioner 

admitted to speaking with Rivera to hire him to murder the decedent and clarified that the 

decision to kill the decedent was ultimately not his, but the criminal organization with which he 

was associated, Petitioner also apologized to the family of the decedent, who was present in the 

courtroom at his guilty plea. N.T. 1/22/2018 at 12, 20-21, 32-34; N.T. 2/20/2018 at 17-23. 

Petitioner cannot show prejudice amounting to manifest injustice as he entered into his 

plea voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently, as previously decided by this Court and Superior 

Court. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/5/18, at 3-6; see also Commonwealth • Delarosa, 707 EDA 

12 
2018 (Pa. Super. Jan. 31, 2019). As a result, Petitioner is not entitled to relief and his Brady 

claim fails. 

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is DENIED. The Petitioner is hereby 

notified that he has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order and Opinion to file an appeal with 

the Superior Court. 

BY THE COURT, 

Barbara A. McDermott, J 

13 

2018 (Pa. Super. Jan. 31, 2019). As a result, Petitioner is not entitled to relief and his Brady 

claim fails. 

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is DENIED. The Petitioner is hereby 

notified that he has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order and Opinion to file an appeal with 

the Superior Court. 

BY THE COURT, 

Barbara A. McDermott, J 

13 
Commonwealth v. Raul Delarosa, CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing filing upon the person(s), and in 

the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. Crim. P. 114: 

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office 

Three South Penn Square 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Attn: Tracey Kavanagh, Esq. 

Type of Service: 

Type of Service: 

Dated: August 3, 2023 

Regular Mail 

Raul Delarosa 

NG7501 

SCI Coal Township 

1 Kelley Drive 

Coal Township, PA 17866-1020 

Certified Mail 

Scan McFadden 

Law Clerk to the 

Honorable Barbara A. McDermott 

14 

Commonwealth v. Raul Delarosa, CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing filing upon the person(s), and in 

the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. Crim. P. 114: 

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office 

Three South Penn Square 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Attn: Tracey Kavanagh, Esq. 

Type of Service: 

Type of Service: 

Dated: August 3, 2023 

Regular Mail 

Raul Delarosa 

NG7501 

SCI Coal Township 

1 Kelley Drive 

Coal Township, PA 17866-1020 

Certified Mail 

Scan McFadden 

Law Clerk to the 

Honorable Barbara A. McDermott 

14