from the Order Entered November 30, 2016 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. [*]
Lisa Lee Shiloh, appeals pro se from the order
entered in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, which
dismissed as untimely her serial petition filed under the
Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as
follows. On February 1, 2011, a jury convicted Appellant of
multiple counts of delivery of a controlled substance,
criminal use of a communication facility, conspiracy, and
endangering the welfare of children, in connection with
Appellant's participation in a drug operation. Relevant
to this appeal, Appellant's sister, Stacy Stitely, was
also involved with, and faced charges for her role in, the
drug operation. Ms. Stitely testified for the Commonwealth at
Appellant's trial. The trial court sentenced Appellant on
April 21, 2011, to an aggregate term of 14-30 years'
imprisonment. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
November 17, 2011, Appellant timely filed a pro se
PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel on November 23,
2011, who filed an amended PCRA petition on April 4, 2012,
and a second amended petition on May 11, 2012. Following a
PCRA hearing, the court denied PCRA relief on February 12,
2013. This Court affirmed the decision on November 20, 2013.
See Commonwealth v. Shiloh, 91 A.3d 1291 (Pa.Super.
filed her second PCRA petition pro se on January 17,
2014. Following appropriate notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
907, the court denied relief on February 4, 2015. This Court
affirmed the denial of PCRA relief on December 18, 2015.
See Commonwealth v. Shiloh, 135 A.3d 663 (Pa.Super.
2015). Appellant filed another PCRA petition on March 28,
2016, which she withdrew on May 19, 2016.
23, 2016, Appellant filed the current serial pro se
PCRA petition, asserting the "newly-discovered
fact" exception to the PCRA timeliness requirement.
Specifically, Appellant claimed, inter alia, that on
May 3, 2016, she received an affidavit from her sister, Ms.
Stitely, stating that the investigating officer in
Appellant's case had promised to help Ms. Stitely get a
deal in exchange for her cooperation and testimony against
Appellant. Appellant attached a copy of the affidavit to her
PCRA petition. In her affidavit dated April 26, 2016, Ms.
I Stacy Stitely was in Adams County Prison for [a] drug raid
in Littlestown Pa on June 15, 2010. Within a week or two
Officer O'Shea came to Adams County Prison [and] wanted
to talk with me about what they knew and what I knew about
what was happening with Carroll Lescalleet Sr., Kirk [Shiloh]
& [Appellant, ] all the people dealing with this case. At
that time my boyfriend Carroll Lescalleet Sr. was also in
Adams County Prison. Officer O'Shea told me if I'd
talk with him he'd help get Carroll released at his bail
hearing because he knew we had a young son at home and when
the time came for me he would help me get a deal. So I talked
with him and on June 23, 2010, Carroll Lescalleet Sr. was
released from Adams County Prison. On February 1, 2011[, ] I
testified for him against [Appellant] and on August 11, 2011
I was sentenced to 18 months─5 year[s] because I
cooperated and testified.
(Affidavit of Stacy Stitely, dated April 26, 2016, at 1-2).
Appellant asserted in her PCRA petition that the agreement
between her sister and Trooper O'Shea constituted a
"newly-discovered fact, " previously unknown,
because Ms. Stitely expressly denied the Commonwealth had
offered her any promises or deals in exchange for her
testimony as a Commonwealth witness at Appellant's trial.
Appellant also attached to her PCRA petition a copy of her
sister's August 22, 2011 negotiated guilty plea colloquy
transcript, in which the Commonwealth states it offered Ms.
Stitely a sentence slightly into the mitigated range based in
part on her cooperation in Appellant's case and testimony
against Appellant. Appellant insisted she had no reason to
suspect her sister lied at Appellant's trial, when she
denied the existence of a deal. Appellant claimed she could
not have discovered the deal between Ms. Stitely and the
Commonwealth sooner, even with the exercise of due diligence.
October 3, 2016, the court issued notice of its intent to
dismiss Appellant's petition without a hearing per
Pa.R.Crim.P 907. Appellant responded pro se. The
PCRA court denied relief on November 30, 2016. Appellant
timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on December
14, 2016. On December 21, 2016, the court ordered Appellant
to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied
on January 12, 2017.
raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN FAILING TO PROPERLY APPLY THE
EXCEPTION OUTLINED IN 42 PA.C.S. [§] 9545(B)(1)(II)?
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE
WITNESS' AFFIDAVIT IS CONSISTENT WITH HER ...