Com. v. Jackson (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S05029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ANDRE JACKSON Appellant No. 800 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered March 23, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000479-1998 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and COLVILLE, J.* MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: Filed: February 15, 2013 Andre Jackson appeals pro se from the order entered on March 23, 2012, denying his fourth petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act ( PCRA ), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. After a thorough review of the record, the parties briefs, and applicable law, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court s opinion. The PCRA court aptly summarized the facts and procedural history in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and we adopt its recitation. See PCRA Court Opinion, 3/23/2012, at 1-5. Jackson alleges the PCRA court erred in: (1) dismissing his newly discovered evidence and ineffectiveness claims by finding that these claims do not fall under the time bar exceptions as set ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S05029-13 forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii);1 (2) not finding that Jackson is actually innocent of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt from the preponderance of the DNA evidence; and (3) finding that defense counsel performed his duty in an effective manner. See Jackson s Brief at 4. The PCRA court provided a thorough and well-reasoned discussion of its findings. See PCRA Court Opinion, supra, at 5-7 (explaining that Jackson s fourth PCRA petition was facially untimely and he did not establish any exception to timeliness requirements based on the following: (1) the receipt of the newspaper article, published on December 17, 1998, did not constitute newly discovered evidence because Jackson was present at the time that defense counsel made the statement2, and therefore, this information would have been known to him at that time; (2) since the information contained in the article is available to the public as a matter of public record that is discoverable with the exercise of due diligence, Jackson did not provide any explanation as to why he was unable to discover the article that was published at the time of his sentencing and he did not ____________________________________________ 1 Specifically, Jackson asserted that certain facts were unknown to him until December 6, 2011 when he received an article published in the Patriot News that was mailed to him from the Lebanon Valley College Library regarding his case. 2 In the December 17, 1998 newspaper article, defense counsel was quoted at Jackson s sentencing hearing as saying that the fingerprints found at the crime scene did not match Jackson s fingerprints. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/23/2012, at 5. -2- J-S05029-13 establish that he was precluded from seeking this newspaper article from the library and any other source at any earlier point in the proceedings; and (3) even if the newspaper article constituted newly discovered evidence, Jackson s challenge would not warrant any relief because his argument relating to sufficiency was waived when he entered his guilty plea and may not be challenged in a PCRA proceeding). We conclude all issues are meritless and adopt the sound reasoning of the PCRA court. Accordingly, we affirm. Order affirmed. Colville, J., concurs in the result. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
