Court Opinion

ID: 9379411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 16:06:50.818818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.948275
License: Public Domain

J-A25019-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 JAMIE M. BROWN                          :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 17 WDA 2022

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 15, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-04-CR-0000913-2001

BEFORE:     KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:

                                                FILED: March 15, 2023

      I agree with the Majority that this case should be remanded so that the

PCRA court may consider whether Brown established the newly discovered

fact exception the PCRA’s time bar with regard to the statements from Hines

and Taylor. Unlike the Majority, however, I conclude that a reading of Brown’s

2021 petition sufficiently establishes when Brown discovered the information

regarding Dorsett’s plea deal and that he acted with due diligence in raising

this claim in his 2021 petition. Thus, I dissent from the Majority’s dismissal

of this claim and, upon remand, would direct the PCRA court to determine

whether Brown can establish the newly discovered fact exception as to

Dorsett’s plea deal as well as the statements from Hines and Taylor.
J-A25019-22

       My conclusion is supported by a detailed review of Brown’s 2021

petition. Following our prior remand, the PCRA court denied Brown’s third

PCRA petition on September 21, 2018.1            Brown appealed this decision on

October 5, 2018. Brown asserts that on November 2, 2018, while this appeal

was pending, PCRA counsel acquired additional newly discovered facts.

Brown’s 2021 petition further alleged:

          116.     Specifically, an individual named Travon Dawkins
          was transferred to SCI-Forest where [Brown] was
          incarcerated.

          117.     Mr. Dawkins is from the Aliquippa area and was
          incarcerated for a homicide.

          118.     Dawkins, who knew [Brown’s] younger brother,
          had just recently been transferred to SCI-Forest from
          federal prison, and informed [Brown] that as part of his
          criminal case in Beaver County, he had received in
          discovery, a statement made by Anthony “Ali” Dorsett, as
          part of Dorsett’s federal plea deal in 2009, which required
          Dorsett to provide truthful information concerning
          homicides in Aliquippa. See Exhibit 5.

                                          ***

          120.      As part of the plea deal requiring Dorsett to provide
          truthful information concerning a variety of homicides in the
          Aliquippa region, Dorsett informed the federal and state
          authorities that Anthony Tusweet Smith confessed to him
          killing Officer Naim. See Exhibit 5.

          121.    [PCRA counsel] met with Dawkins at SCI-Forest
          and Dawkins also wrote to [PCRA counsel] and authorized
          [PCRA counsel] to have access to his discovery.

____________________________________________

1Brown mistakenly lists this date as September 21, 2019. See PCRA
Petition, 1/4/21, at 20, ¶ 112.

                                           -2-
J-A25019-22

          122.     Almost immediately, on November 2, 2018,
          counsel obtained the aforementioned discovery in Dawkins’
          case, including the federal plea deal of Dorsett. Exhibit 5.

       PCRA Petition, 1/4/21.

       PCRA counsel further noted that, because his appeal from the denial of

his third PCRA petition was pending, he could not file another post-conviction

proceeding until the decision in that matter was completed.        Id. at ¶ 123

(citing Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000)). This court

denied Brown’s appeal from the denial of this third PCRA petition on October

2, 2019, and our Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal

on June 10, 2020. Thus, Brown timely filed his fourth PCRA petition raising

the Dorsett plea deal as a newly discovered fact in his petition filed on January

4, 2021.2

       Admittedly, Brown does not provide a precise date when Dawkins told

him about Dorsett’s plea deal. Nevertheless, it appears from the record that

Brown learned this information between the time he appealed the denial of his

third petition on September 21, 2018, and November 2, 2018, when PCRA

counsel obtained the discovery which included Dorsett’s plea deal. Thus, I

disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that Brown cannot establish the newly

discovered facts exception to the time bar on this basis, and would remand

____________________________________________

2 I also note that the PCRA court did not dismiss the Dorsett claim based on a
finding that Brown did not timely raise it. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/29/21,
at 6-11.

                                           -3-
J-A25019-22

for a consideration of this claim, as well as the claims involving Hines and

Taylor.

                                   -4-