Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s second petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act as untimely. The court held that the PCRA’s time limits are jurisdictional, that the asserted exceptions did not apply, and that the petitioner could not obtain review through equitable tolling or an independent writ of habeas corpus. The court also concluded that the judicial-bias claim had been previously litigated.

Holdings

1. The PCRA's one-year filing requirement is jurisdictional and applies to second and subsequent petitions. Because appellant's judgment became final on June 10, 1991, and his second petition was filed on July 3, 2001, the petition was untimely absent a statutory exception.
2. Prior defense counsel's alleged failure to investigate or present claims does not qualify as unconstitutional governmental interference under the PCRA.
3. Allegations that prior counsel suppressed claims or evidence, or that counsel's alleged conflict was discovered only after new counsel reviewed the case, do not establish the after-discovered-evidence exception.
4. A petitioner may not use alleged new evidence or a new theory to relitigate a judicial-bias issue that was previously raised and decided in a collateral proceeding.
5. The PCRA's jurisdictional time limit is not subject to equitable tolling except to the extent the statutory exceptions provide for an extension.
6. Pennsylvania habeas corpus remains an independent remedy only for claims for which the PCRA provides no remedy; it cannot be used to evade the PCRA time bar when the claims fall within the PCRA's scope.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appellant's second PCRA petition was timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b).
2. Whether alleged ineffective assistance or governmental interference by prior defense counsel satisfied the governmental-interference exception to the PCRA time bar.
3. Whether alleged newly discovered evidence concerning counsel's performance, Arnold Beverly's confession, or judicial bias satisfied the after-discovered-evidence exception.
4. Whether the PCRA court improperly dismissed the petition without a hearing by considering the merits of the underlying claims.
5. Whether the PCRA court could equitably toll the PCRA's jurisdictional time limit because of alleged judicial bias.
6. Whether Pennsylvania common-law habeas corpus remained available to review claims barred by the PCRA.

Disposition

affirmed