Commonwealth v. Johnson

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of Marcus R. Johnson’s second PCRA petition as untimely. The court held that Smith v. Arizona did not recognize a new constitutional right for purposes of the PCRA’s timeliness exception and had not been held retroactive to collateral review. Because the petition did not satisfy the exception in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii), the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of Johnson’s Confrontation Clause challenge.

Holdings

1. Johnson's November 2024 second PCRA petition was untimely because his judgment of sentence became final on February 26, 2018, and he did not establish a statutory exception to the PCRA's one-year filing limit.
2. Smith v. Arizona did not recognize a new constitutional right; it clarified how previously established Confrontation Clause principles apply when an expert conveys an absent analyst's out-of-court statements as the basis for an opinion.
3. Johnson could not satisfy § 9545(b)(1)(iii) because Smith had not been held to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review before Johnson filed his petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Johnson's second PCRA petition was untimely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1) and whether the new-retroactive-right exception in § 9545(b)(1)(iii) applied.
2. Whether Smith v. Arizona recognized a new constitutional right for purposes of § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
3. Whether Smith v. Arizona had been held to apply retroactively on collateral review before Johnson filed his petition.
4. Whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to reach Johnson's Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of the forensic pathology testimony.

Disposition

affirmed