Commonwealth Of Pa. v. Albrecht

Decision Date27 May 2010
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee,v.Alfred K. ALBRECHT, Sr., Appellant.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

994 A.2d 1091

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee,
v.
Alfred K. ALBRECHT, Sr., Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Dec. 11, 2009.
Decided May 27, 2010.


994 A.2d 1092
Alfred K. Albrecht, Sr., pro se.

Amy Zapp, PA Office of Attorney General, Maureen Flannery, Bucks County District Attorney's Office, David Ward Heckler, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.
OPINION
Justice EAKIN.

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, two counts of second degree murder, and four counts of arson, relating to the deaths of his mother, wife, and daughter. Appellant was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, we affirmed appellant's convictions and death sentence. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Appellant's first PCRA petition was denied; we affirmed. Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693 (1998).

Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted appellant a new penalty hearing, but denied relief with respect to his underlying convictions. Albrecht v. Horn, 314 F.Supp.2d 451 (E.D.Pa.2004). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of guilt phase relief, reversed the order of a new penalty hearing, and remanded to the district court for consideration of remaining penalty phase issues. Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103 (3d Cir.2007). On remand, the district court once again ordered a new penalty hearing. Albrecht v. Beard, 636 F.Supp.2d 468 (E.D.Pa.2009). The Commonwealth appealed to the Third

994 A.2d 1093
Circuit, where the matter remains on appeal.

Nonetheless, appellant filed this serial, pro se, PCRA petition May 27, 2008. After filing a notice of intent to dismiss the petition, the PCRA court denied appellant's petition without a hearing. Appellant now appeals, pro se, to this Court.

We review a denial of PCRA relief to determine whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record and free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 961 A.2d 80, 84 (2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 596 Pa. 398, 943 A.2d 940, 944 (2008)). Appellant “bears the burden of demonstrating that the issues he is pursuing have not been previously litigated or waived.” Id., at 84-85 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3)). The PCRA court need not hold a hearing on every issue appellant raises, as a hearing is only required on “genuine issues of material fact.” Id.; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 909(B).

As timeliness is separate and distinct from the merits of appellant's underlying claims, we first determine whether this PCRA petition was timely filed. See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 598 Pa. 574, 959 A.2d 306, 310 (2008) (consideration of Brady1 claim separate from consideration of its timeliness). All PCRA petitions “including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final....” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1). “The PCRA's time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have the legal authority to address the substantive claims.” Commonwealth v. Chester, 586 Pa. 468, 895 A.2d 520, 522 (2006) (citations omitted).

The PCRA court found appellant's petition was untimely. The court found, as appellant's judgment became final before the amendments to the PCRA, he had one year after the effective date of the amendment to raise his claims. Because appellant failed to do so, the court determined appellant's petition was untimely.2

Appellant argues this petition qualifies for two statutory exceptions 3 to timeliness: the petition is based on facts unknown to him which could not be ascertained with the exercise of due diligence,

994 A.2d 1094
and governmental interference prevented him from bringing this claim earlier. Appellant claims advances in fire science have rendered the Commonwealth's expert testimony unreliable. Regarding governmental interference, appellant raises Brady claims and alleges the Commonwealth improperly withheld physical samples from the fire scene, which appellant contends could disprove arson. Appellant further claims the Commonwealth failed to disclose witness statements, which could have impeached various witnesses who had testified against him. Additionally, appellant contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain this evidence, and all prior appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness...

To continue reading

Request your trial
206 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Cobbs
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 17 Agosto 2021
    ...lacks jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the claim asserted therein. Brief for Appellee at 11 (citing Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 606 Pa. 64, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (2010) (holding that where a PCRA petition is filed untimely, courts do not have jurisdiction to address the substantive clai......
  • Williams v. Beard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 9 Marzo 2011
    ...when he failed to raise the accomplice liability claim in his initial petition for PCRA relief in 1996. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 n. 2 (Pa.2010). This default occurred well before October 20, 1998, the date by which the PCRA statute of limitations was firmly establis......
  • Commonwealth v. Reid
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 18 Agosto 2020
    ...appellant's first PCRA petition, we first consider how jurisdiction factors into our analysis. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 606 Pa. 64, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (2010) ("[I]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition. Without......
  • Commonwealth v. Baumhammers
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 2014
    ...claims, that is, those other than the ones for which a hearing was held. See Docket Entry 146. See generally Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 606 Pa. 64, 67, 994 A.2d 1091, 1093 (2010) ("The PCRA court need not hold a hearing on every issue appellant raises, as a hearing is only required on 'genui......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT