Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10814291/com-v-smith-j/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Smith, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1000 WDA 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Panella

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (24.4K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Jack A. Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8243/jack-a-panella/)

J-S01025-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOSEPH CHARLES SMITH :
:
Appellant : No. 1000 WDA 2024

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 2, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008807-2003

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOSEPH CHARLES SMITH :
:
Appellant : No. 310 WDA 2025

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 2, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010345-2004

BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: March 24, 2026

Joseph Charles Smith appeals pro se from the order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing his petition pursuant to the

Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, without a

---

• Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S01025-26

hearing. Smith argues that the PCRA court abused its discretion in dismissing

his PCRA petition as untimely without a hearing. We affirm.

This Court previously set forth the underlying factual history of this

matter:

On April 30, 2003, four co-conspirators in ski masks kidnapped
David Williams, Lakeenah Fitts, and their infant child. The
assailants beat Williams and demanded $150,000 ransom. There
ensued a frantic effort by Williams and Fitts to obtain sufficient
funds from various relatives and friends to pay the ransom. The
kidnappers drove Williams, Fitts, and their child around in
Williams’ van, as they tried to get the money. One of the people
they tried to get ransom money from was Erica Lunsford, a former
girlfriend of Williams. When the efforts ultimately failed, Williams’
captors shot and killed him. The kidnappers left Williams, dead or
dying, in his van, alone with his infant daughter.

Around that time, a 911 call reported that two black males wearing
ski masks were seen jumping out of a white van and getting into
a blue S–10 Chevy blazer. The police subsequently found the
blazer. It had been set on fire and was severely damaged. The
blazer belonged to [Smith].

Ms. Fitts eventually identified [Smith] as the driver in the
kidnapping.[FN1] [Smith] concedes that he was the owner of the
getaway blazer, and that it was subsequently burnt. [Smith] first
agreed to turn himself in to the police with his lawyer, but fled
instead. He was captured by the fugitive squad a year later.

FN1: Ms. Fitts and Ms. Lunsford independently
identified [Smith]. Both testified they had seen him
briefly remove his mask. Ms. Fitts had initially
identified someone else, John Brazella, as the
getaway driver. Police led Ms. Fitts to Brazella because
the vehicle he owned resembled the description of the
getaway van. [Smith] was eventually identified as the
owner of the getaway vehicle. Ms. Fitts identified him
as the kidnap driver from a photo array.

At trial, defense counsel cross-examined Ms. Fitts on her earlier
identification of Brazella and her subsequent identification of

-2-
J-S01025-26

[Smith]. Ms. Lunsford also identified [Smith. Smith] testified in
his own defense, denying any involvement in the kidnap or
murder. (See N.T. Trial, 2/08/05, at 487). He admitted ownership
of the Chevy blazer (conceding that he did not have a driver’s
license), but claimed it had been stolen on the day of the
kidnapping, shortly before it was burned.

A jury convicted [Smith] of murder of the second degree,
kidnapping, burglary, robbery and conspiracy. The trial court
imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the
murder and a concurrent term of not less than ten nor more than
twenty years’ imprisonment for the criminal conspiracy conviction.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 113 A.3d 355, 2014 WL 10787928, at *1 (Pa.

Super. filed Nov. 21, 2014) (unpublished memorandum). On March 12, 2008,

this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Smith,

953 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 12, 2008) (unpublished memorandum).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further review on March 2, 2010.

See Commonwealth v. Smith, 990 A.2d 729 (Pa. 2010).

Smith filed a timely first PCRA petition on July 2, 2010, which the PCRA

court denied. On November 21, 2014, this Court quashed Smith’s appeal for

briefing deficiencies, and our Supreme Court denied his petition for permission

to appeal on June 10, 2015. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 113 A.3d 355,

2014 WL 10787928, at *4 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 21, 2014), appeal denied,

117 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2015).

Smith filed the instant pro se PCRA petition on June 22, 2022, and an

amended/supplemental petition on September 15, 2023. Smith raised a claim

of after discovered evidence. He averred that on June 20, 2021, he received

a message that Fitts wrote a book, “Broken Pieces,” published in August 2020,

-3-
J-S01025-26

about the kidnapping and Williams’s murder and asked a prison staff member

to research the book. On June 29, 2021, the prison staff member confirmed

the existence of the book and, upon Smith’s request, ordered it for Smith.

Smith received the book on July 7, 2021.

Smith proffers various excerpts from the book, including: Fitts

proclaiming that the book contains her “whole truth”; when investigators were

keeping Fitts informed about the progress of the investigation she “was given

so much information that I really didn’t have to ask any questions[;]” that she

“will never know,” “what really happened” to Williams; and “the only person

that may have been able to find out what really happened to [Williams] is no

longer here.”1 See PCRA Petition, 6/22/22, at 5-7, 12-13. Smith claims that

these statements in the book “infer[]” that Fitts could not identify Smith as

the driver and investigators committed misconduct by unduly influencing and

manipulating Fitts to identify Smith as the driver. See id.

The Commonwealth filed an answer to Smith’s PCRA petition.2 On

February 13, 2024, the PCRA court issued its notice of intent to dismiss

---

1 The Commonwealth and Smith agree that the person Fitts is referring to is

“Uncle Kevin”, who is now deceased.

2 In its answer and appellate brief, the Commonwealth understands “Uncle
Kevin’s alleged unspecific knowledge” to be the predicate fact on which
Smith’s claim relies. Appellee’s Brief, at 14; see also Commonwealth’s
Answer, at 8-9. Our understanding of Smith’s argument is that the predicate
facts he rests his claim on are Fitts’s statements that purportedly demonstrate
her uncertainty about “what really happened.” Therefore, we do not address
the Commonwealth’s argument in any detail.

-4-
J-S01025-26

because Smith’s petition was untimely, with no applicable timeliness

exception. On July 2, 2024, the PCRA court issued an opinion and order

dismissing his PCRA petition without a hearing. The PCRA court briefly

explained that Smith failed to satisfy the newly discovered fact timeliness

exception because “[t]he current 2022 petition does not set forth any facts

that would bring it within the exception to the one-year time limitation and,

as such, should be dismissed.” PCRA Court Opinion, 7/2/24, at 4 (pagination

added for ease of reference).

Smith appealed pro se and filed a court ordered concise statement of

matters complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The PCRA court

adopted its July 2, 2024, opinion for purposes of Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

Smith raises the following issues for our review.

I. Was the PCRA court[‘s] determination of timeliness supported
by the record and free of legal error[?]

II. Did the PCRA court abuse its d[i]scretion in denying his request
for an evidentiary hearing when there are material issues of fact
raised and left unresolved in determining whether [Smith’s]
petition is timely[?]

Appellant’s Brief, at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Our standard of review is well established:

Our review of a PCRA court’s decision is limited to examining
whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the
record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal
error. We view the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of
record in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. With
respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an

-5-
J-S01025-26

evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such
a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not
be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 273 A.3d 13, 18 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation

omitted). “It is within the PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing

if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the

record or other evidence.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281,

1287 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).

“[T]he PCRA’s time limitations are jurisdictional[.]” Commonwealth v.

Green, 14 A.3d 114, 117 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). A PCRA petition

must be filed “within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless

the petition alleges and the petitioner proves” an applicable exception. 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). Any claim invoking a timeliness exception must be

filed within one year of the date the claim could have been presented. 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).

It is undisputed that Smith’s petition was filed more than one year after

the date his judgment became final. Therefore, he had to establish an

exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirement.

Relevant here is the newly discovered fact exception. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9545(b)(1)(ii). The newly discovered fact exception “requires a petitioner to

demonstrate he did not know the facts upon which he based his petition and

could not have learned those facts earlier by the exercise of due diligence.”

Commonwealth v. Balestier-Marrero, 314 A.3d 549, 554 (Pa. Super.

-6-
J-S01025-26

2024), appeal denied, 330 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2024) (citations omitted). “Due

diligence requires reasonable efforts by a petitioner, based on the particular

circumstances, to uncover facts that may support a claim for collateral relief,

but does not require perfect vigilance or punctilious care.” Commonwealth

v. Hart, 199 A.3d 475, 481 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation, brackets, and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Application of the newly discovered facts exception “does not require

any merits analysis of the underlying claim[.]” Commonwealth v. Williams,

324 A.3d 569, 576 (Pa. Super. 2024), appeal denied, 333 A.3d 304 (Pa. 2025)

(citation omitted). However, “while we need not find a ‘direct connection’

between the newly-discovered facts and the claims asserted by a petitioner,

the statutory language requires there be some relationship between the two.”

Commonwealth v. Shannon, 184 A.3d 1010, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2018). “The

facts must be newly-discovered not merely newly-discovered or newly-willing

sources that corroborate previously known facts or previously raised claims.”

Commonwealth v. Mickeals, 335 A.3d 13, 21 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Smith argues that his petition was timely because he exercised due

diligence by filing his petition within one year of learning of the existence of

the statements in the book. See Appellant’s Brief, at 19-22. Further, he argues

that the predicate “facts,” i.e., Fitts’s statements in her book, are related to

his underlying claim of law enforcement coercing Fitts to identify him as the

-7-
J-S01025-26

driver by demonstrating that Fitts falsely identified him. See id. at 23-25.

Therefore, according to him, the PCRA court erred in dismissing his petition

as untimely without conducting a proper analysis or holding a hearing. See

id. at 27-29.

Smith’s argument is without merit because he has not adequately

demonstrated “some relationship” between the predicate facts he asserts and

his claim of law enforcement manipulating Fitts to identify him. Fitts’s

statement that she “will never know” “what happened” to Williams could refer

to a plethora of things related to the murder of Williams. Nothing in the

excerpts suggests that Fitts was uncertain of her identification of Smith. Under

these circumstances, an evidentiary hearing would only serve as an

unnecessary fishing expedition for Smith to try to further probe the meaning

of Fitts’s statements, or otherwise establish his speculative claim of police

misconduct. PCRA petitioners are not entitled to such hearings. See

Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818, 828 (Pa. 2014) (“An evidentiary

hearing is not meant to function as a fishing expedition for any possible

evidence that may support some speculative claim.”) (citation, brackets, and

ellipses omitted).

In sum, Smith claims that he has discovered new facts that support his

claim that police misconduct caused Fitts to falsely identify him. The newly

discovered facts Smith pleads bear no relationship to his speculative claim.

See Commonwealth v. Hill, 339 A.3d 393, 2025 WL 1090424, at *4 (Pa.

-8-
J-S01025-26

Super. filed April 10, 2025), appeal denied, 348 A.3d 87 (Pa. 2025)

(unpublished memorandum) (finding no relationship between police

misconduct allegations in a newspaper article and the appellant’s PCRA claim

because the article “does not cite any evidence of wrongdoing by the

prosecutors or officers that may be linked to [the a]ppellant’s case.”).3

Therefore, because there is not “some relationship” between the predicate

facts in Smith’s PCRA petition and his substantive claim, the trial court

properly exercised its discretion in finding he failed to satisfy the newly

discovered fact timeliness exception. See Shannon, 184 A.3d at 1017.

Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court’s order dismissing Smith’s

petition as untimely without a hearing.

Order affirmed.

3/24/2026

---

3 “Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), we may rely on unpublished memoranda
issued after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value.” Commonwealth v.
Pointer, 348 A.3d 1216, 1231 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2025).

-9-