Commonwealth v. Fears

Summary

This opinion addresses Leroy Fears’s serial petition under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act, which alleged that former Justice J. Michael Eakin’s participation in an earlier appeal created an unconstitutional risk of judicial bias. Justice Wecht would reject dismissal based on timeliness or the merits at that stage because the PCRA court had denied discovery and had not adequately developed the factual record. The opinion would vacate the dismissal order and remand for additional fact-finding.

Holdings

1. The public availability of information does not establish that the information was known to the PCRA petitioner or that the petitioner could have discovered it through due diligence; those questions require a circumstance-dependent inquiry into the petitioner's actual knowledge and capacity to discover the facts.
2. A claim that an appellate jurist had an unconstitutional likelihood or appearance of bias should be developed through discovery and, where appropriate, an evidentiary hearing in the PCRA court before appellate merits review.
3. A due process challenge to the impartiality of an appellate jurist is cognizable under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(i), and if the claim is proven, the remedy is a new appeal before the appellate tribunal without participation by the biased jurist.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fears satisfied the PCRA newly discovered facts exception by alleging that information concerning Justice Eakin's emails was unknown to him and could not have been discovered through due diligence.
2. Whether the former public-records presumption could be used to reject Fears's newly discovered facts claim after that presumption was abolished in Commonwealth v. Small.
3. Whether the PCRA court should have permitted discovery and conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning Fears's knowledge, due diligence, and the objective risk of judicial bias arising from Justice Eakin's emails.
4. Whether an appellate-level judicial-bias claim is cognizable under the PCRA and, if proven, requires a new appeal without participation by the allegedly biased jurist.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded