J-S15003-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAUL DELAROSA : : Appellant : No. 2188 EDA 2023 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.* MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2024 Appellant, Raul DeLarosa, appeals from the order entered on August 3, 2023, which denied his petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

On January 22, 2018, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and criminal solicitation.1 During the plea colloquy, Appellant admitted to the following: [In] June [] 2010, [Appellant] requested the assistance of [co-defendant Hector Rivera] . . . to assist him in the killing of the victim in this case, Candido Hidalgo [(“the Victim”)].

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c), 903, and 902(a), respectively.

J-S15003-24

Hector Rivera, in turn, asked another [co-defendant] in this case by the name of Jose Padilla . . . to also assist in the killing of [the Victim].

On . . . [June 13, 2010], with the assistance of [Appellant], Hector Rivera and Jose Padilla, armed with knives[,] waited in the back of [the Victim’s Philadelphia] property. . . . Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla waited . . . between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on that date . . . [and] when the [Victim] . . . arrived home, they attacked him and stabbed him repeatedly with knives. And they stabbed him in the area of the face, the neck, the hands, and the chest.

Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla fled the location. Police and medics were called by [the Victim’s] wife and daughter who were home at the time. Medics arrived and pronounced [the Victim] dead at 4:07 a.m.

[The Victim’s] body was transported to the Medical Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic pathologist Dr. Aaron Rosen, who determined that the cause of [the Victim’s] death was multiple stab and incise wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.

Subsequent to the killing of [the Victim, Appellant] did make arrangements to pay Mr. Rivera and Mr. Padilla thousands of dollars for their assistance in the killing of [the Victim.

Appellant] fled to the Dominican Republic shortly after the murder and had to be extradited back here to be here for this trial.

...

[The] evidence would show that [Appellant and the Victim] were involved in a drug dealing business together. They were transporting large quantities of drugs from Mexico throughout the East Coast.

N.T. Guilty Plea, 1/22/18, at 20-22.

On February 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve the negotiated, aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison for his convictions.

-2- J-S15003-24

N.T. Sentencing, 2/20/18, at 19. We affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on January 31, 2019. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 209 A.3d 543 (Pa. Super. 2019) (non-precedential decision).

On March 26, 2019, Appellant filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition and the PCRA court later appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the proceedings. The PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s first PCRA petition on August 12, 2019 and we affirmed the PCRA court’s order on December 14, 2020. Commonwealth v. DeLarosa, 245 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2020) (non-precedential decision).

On May 1, 2023, Appellant filed the current PCRA petition, which constitutes Appellant’s second petition for post-conviction collateral relief under the PCRA. Within the petition, Appellant claimed: On November 20, 2022, while at the prison library, the law clerk provided [Appellant] with a copy of a publication titled Right To Be Free, which documented an extensive list of Philadelphia Police Officers who had been “accused, charged, convicted, and/or disciplined for alleged actions of misconduct.”

With the assistance of the law clerk, the names of these police officers were compared to the few pages of the discovery file [Appellant] has in his possession. This search revealed the following officers accused or convicted of misconduct were also involved in the investigation of [Appellant’s] case: “John Verrecchio, Ohmarr Jenkins, Thomas Gaul, Angela Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Philip Nordo, Carl Watkins,” and “Holmes.”

On February 12, 2023, [Appellant] received (from the prison’s law clerk) what he believes to be portions of Officer Nordo’s disciplinary file that the law clerk obtained from another prisoner. This information, which was never disclosed to defense counsel, reveals that Officer Nordo had -3- J-S15003-24

committed instances of police misconduct before [Appellant’s] arrest, and was suspended or under investigation at the time of [Appellant’s] guilty plea.

[Appellant] submits that[] Hector Rivera, the only witness linking him to this crime[,] was interviewed by [officers] Nordo, Verrecchio, and Gaul. At this interview, Rivera allegedly confessed to committing the murder ordered by [Appellant], and set in motion via a phone call.

In an August 5, 2014 sworn affidavit, based on this interview, Officer Verrecchio claimed to be in possession of phone records linking a call from [Appellant] to Rivera at the time of the murder. These phone records, however, cannot be located. While [Appellant] knew he did not call Rivera when he pled guilty, his attorney told him the police had records that demonstrate a call was made. Had [Appellant] known at the time of his guilty plea that Officer Verrecchio was dishonest, he would not have accepted his attorney’s word that such phone records existed, and further, rejected the Commonwealth’s offer to plead guilty.

Appellant’s Second PCRA Petition, 5/1/23, at 1-3 (citations and numbering omitted).

According to Appellant, even though his PCRA petition was facially untimely, his claims fell within the newly-discovered fact and governmental interference exceptions to the PCRA’s one-year time-bar. Appellant requested that the PCRA court “vacate his conviction, allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, and invoke his right to a jury trial.” Id. at 3.

On May 17, 2023, the PCRA court provided Appellant with notice that it intended to dismiss his petition in 20 days, without holding a hearing, as the petition was untimely. PCRA Court Notice, 5/17/23, at 1; see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Appellant responded to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice with an amended petition that expounded upon his original claims. See -4- J-S15003-24

Appellant’s Rule 907 Response, 7/10/23, at 1-29. The PCRA court finally dismissed Appellant’s second PCRA petition on August 3, 2023 and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. See PCRA Court Order, 8/3/23, at 1. Appellant raises the following claims on appeal: 1. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his claim that his PCRA filings below, within [one] year of his discovery of evidence revealing the homicide detectives in his case engaged in serious misconduct, satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i) and (ii)?

2. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his Brady[2] claim where, after pleading guilty and petitioning to withdraw [his] plea, Appellant presented evidence suppressed by the Commonwealth, revealing that both the Commonwealth and trial court knew that the homicide detectives in his case were engaging in serious misconduct which if disclosed, would have resulted in Appellant’s rejection of the Commonwealth’s plea offer?

3. Was Appellant entitled to a hearing on his after-discovered evidence claim where, after pleading guilty, Appellant presented evidence – suppressed by the Commonwealth – after being alerted to and diligently searching for such evidence, revealing that all homicide detectives in his case, including the affiant himself, engaged in misconduct that included falsifying witness statements to support affidavits of probable cause?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Barbara A. McDermott. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, ____________________________________________

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

-5- J-S15003-24

for the reasons expressed in Judge McDermott’s August 3, 2023 opinion.

Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge McDermott’s opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge McDermott’s August 3, 2023 opinion.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 6/28/2024

-6- Circulated 05/17/2024 03:36 PM

IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT OF OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL TRIAL CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION

COMMONWEAL TH OF COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 CP-51-CR-0003855-2017

v. v. FILED ..,, ALIE 00 33 2023 RAUL RAUL DELAROSA DELAROSA PCRA Unit CP Criminal Listings ORDER AND ORDER AND OPINION OPINION McDermott, J.

McDermott, J. August 3, 2023 August 3, 2023 Procedural Procedural History History On On March 10, 2017, March 10, the Petitioner, 2017, the Petitioner, Raul Raul Delarosa, Delarosa, was was arrested arrested and and charged charged with with Murder Murder and and related related offenses. On January offenses. On 22, 2018, January 22, the Petitioner 2018, the Petitioner appeared appeared before before this this Court Court and and entered entered into into aa negotiated to Third-Degree plea to guilty plea negotiated guilty Third-Degree Murder, Murder, Conspiracy Conspiracy to to Commit Commit Murder, Murder, and and Criminal Criminal Solicitation of Murder, Solicitation of Murder, At At the the Defendant's Defendant's request, request, sentencing sentencing was was deferred. deferred. On On February 13, February 13, 2018, the Petitioner 2018, the Petitioner filed filed aa Motion Motion to to Withdraw Withdraw his his Guilty Guilty Plea.

Plea. Following Following aa hearing on hearing on February 20, 2018, February 20, 2018, this this Court Court denied denied his his Motion. That same Motion. That same day, day, this this Court Court imposed imposed the the negotiated negotiated penalties of fifteen penalties of fifteen to to thirty thirty years years of of imprisonment for Third-Degree imprisonment for Third-Degree Murder, Murder, and and concurrent concurrent sentences of fifteen sentences of fifteen to to thirty thirty years of imprisonment years of for Conspiracy imprisonment for Conspiracy to to Commit Commit Murder Murder and and Criminal Solicitation of Criminal Solicitation of Murder, Murder, for for aa total total sentence sentence of of fifteen fifteen to to thirty years of thirty years of imprisonment.' imprisonment.'

The The remaining remaining charges were nolle charges were nolle prossed prossed II The Petitioner The Petitioner appealed, and on appealed, and on January 31, 2019, January 31, 2019, the the Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania affirmed his affirmed his judgment of sentence, judgment of sentence, The The Petitioner Petitioner did did not not file file aa Petition Petition for for Allowance Allowance of of Appeal Appeal with the with the Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania.

On March On March 26, 26, 2019, 2019, the the Petitioner Petitioner filed filed aa timely prose Post-Conviction timely prose Post-Conviction Relief Relief Act Act his first. petition, his ("PCRA") petition, ("PCRA") On May first. On 20, 2019, May 20, 2019, court-appointed counsel filed PCRA counsel court-appointed PCRA no-merit filed aa no-merit letter pursuant letter pursuant to Commonwealth ». Finley, to Commonwealth Finley, 550 A.2d A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Pa. Super. (en bane).

1988) (en bane). On On May May 30, 2019, 30, 2019, after Grazier hearing, after aa Grazier hearing, this Court permitted this Court counsel to permitted counsel to withdraw, withdraw, allowed allowed the the Petitioner to Petitioner to proceed se, and pro se, proceed pro and determined determined that that an an evidentiary hearing was evidentiary hearing was necessary.' necessary.' After After an an on August hearing on evidentiary hearing evidentiary August 12, 2019, this 12, 2019, this Court Court dismissed dismissed the the petition. petition. After After appellate appellate counsel was counsel was appointed", the Petitioner appointed", the Petitioner appealed, and the appealed, and the Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania affirmed this affirmed this Courts Courts dismissal dismissal on on December December 14, 14, 2020.

2020. The Petitioner Petitioner did did not not file file aa Petition Petition for for Allowance of Allowance of Appeal.

Appeal.

On May On 1, 2023, May 1, 2023, the Petitioner Petitioner filed filed the the instant instant pro se PCRA pro se petition, his PCRA petition, his second, second, On On 17, 2023, May 17, May 2023, this this Court Court issued issued aa Notice Notice of of Intent Intent to to Dismiss Dismiss pursuant pursuant to to Pa.R.Crim,P. Pa.R.Crim,P. 907.

907. On On June 5, June 2023, this 5, 2023, this Court Court granted the Petitioner's granted the Petitioner's Motion Motion for for Extension Extension of of Time Time to to File File aa 907 and directed Response and Response directed him him to file aa Response to file no later Response no later than than July July 6, 6, 2023.

2023. On On July July 10, 10, 2023, 2023, the the Petitioner filed Petitioner filed an an untimely untimely 907 Response Response

On January On 22, 2018, January 22, 2018, the the Petitioner Petitioner admitted admitted his his guilt to the guilt to the following following facts: facts: [I]n June [I]n June of2010, of2010, [the [the Petitioner], Petitioner], Raul Raul Delarosa, Delarosa, also also known known as Javier as Javier Cepeda, also known Cepeda, also known as as Edwin Edwin Pichardo, Pichardo, requested the requested the assistance of assistance of aa codefendant codefendant inin this this case, case, Hector Hector Rivera, Rivera, PID PID No. No.

Comuomwealth • Comuomwealth • Grazier, Grazier, 713 A.2d A.2d 81 (Pa. (Pa. 1998).

1998). '' At At the Grazier hearing, the Grazier this Court hearing, this Court noted noted that it had that it had not not yet received the yet received the Finley Finley letter, but found letter, but found that an an evidentiary evidentiary hearing was hearing was necessary to address necessary to address Petitioner's Petitioner's allegations allegations of of plea counsel's ineffectiveness plea counsel's ineffectiveness inin connection connection with with the the of his entry of entry his guilty plea. guilty plea. 'At the 'At the conclusion conclusion of of the the evidentiary hearing, the evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner Petitioner requested that counsel requested that counsel be be appointed appointed for for his his appeal. appeal.

974687. He 974687. He asked asked Mr. Mr. Rivera Rivera to to assist assist him him in in the the killing killing of of the the in this [decedent] in [decedent] this case, case, Candido Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo.

Hector Rivera, Hector Rivera, in in turn, asked another turn, asked another codefendant codefendant in in this this case case the name by the by name of of Jose Jose Padilla, Padilla, PID PID No. No. 946658, 946658, to to also also assist assist in in the the killing of killing of Mr. Candido Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo.

On the On the date date of... of... June June 13th 13th of of 2010, 2010, with with the the assistance assistance of[the of[the Hector Rivera Petitioner], Hector Petitioner], Rivera and and Jose Jose Padilla, Padilla, armed armed with knives with knives waited in waited in the the back back of of [the [the decedent]'s decedent]'s property, which is property, which is located located at at 6120 Cottage 6120 Cottage Street in Philadelphia.

Street in Rivera and Mr. Rivera Philadelphia. Mr. and Mr. Mr. Padilla Padilla waited at waited at approximately between 3:00 approximately between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. a.m. onon that that date, June date, June 13, 13, 2010.

2010. And And when when the the [decedent] arrived home, [decedent] arrived home, they they attacked him attacked him and and stabbed stabbed him him repeatedly with knives. repeatedly with knives. And And they they stabbed him stabbed him in in the the area area of of the the face, face, the the neck, neck, the the hands, hands, and and the the chest. chest.

Mr. Rivera Mr. Rivera and and Mr. Mr. Padilla Padilla fled fled the the location, location, Police Police and and medics medics were called were called by by [the [the decedent]'s wife and decedent]'s wife and daughter daughter who who were were home home at the at the time, time, Medics Medics arrived arrived and and pronounced [the decedent] pronounced [the decedent] dead dead at at 4:07 a.m.

4:07 a.m. decedent]'s body [The decedent]'s was transported body was to the transported to the Medical Medical Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by Examiner's Office where his remains were examined by forensic forensic Dr. Aaron pathologist Dr. pathologist Aaron Rosen, Rosen, who who determined determined that that the the cause cause of of [the decedent]'s [the decedent]'s death was multiple death was multiple stab stab and and incise incise wounds, wounds, and and that the manner that the manner of of death was homicide. death was homicide. to the Subsequent to Subsequent the killing of [the decedent], killing of decedent], [the [the Petitioner] Petitioner] did did make arrangements make arrangements to to pay Rivera and pay Mr, Rivera and Mr. Padilla Padilla thousands thousands of of dollars for dollars for their their assistance assistance in in the the killing killing of of Candido Candido Hidalgo.

Hidalgo. [The [The Petitioner} fled Petitioner} fled to to the the Dominican Republic shortly Dominican Republic after the shortly after the murder murder and had and had to to be be extradited extradited back back here here to to be be here here for for this this trial. trial.

[The Petitioner] [The and [the Petitioner] and [the decedent] were involved decedent] were involved in in aa drug drug business together... dealing business dealing together... transporting transporting large large quantities quantities of drugs of drugs from Mexico from Mexico throughout throughout the the East East Coast.

Coast.

N.T. 1/22/2018 N.T. at 20-21.

1/22/2018 at 20-21.

Discussion Discussion In his In his second second PCRA PCRA petition, the Petitioner petition, the Petitioner raises raises one one claim claim for for review, review, alleging alleging that that the the Commonwealth committed Commonwealth Brady? violation committed aa Brady? violation by failing to disclose failing to disclose allegations allegations of of misconduct misconduct

•• Brady Brady ». Maryland, Maryland, 373 U.$. 83 U.$. 83 (1963) (1963)

----- - Detectives John against Detectives against Verrecchio, Phillip John Verrecchio, Phillip Nordo, Nordo, Thomas Thomas Gaul, Gaul, Ohmarr Ohmarr Jenkins, Jenkins, Angela Angela Gaines, Ronald Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Jenkins, Carl Carl Watkins, Watkins, and and Holmes° Holmes° in in other other cases. cases.

A PCRA A PCRA petition, including aa second petition, including second or or subsequent petition, must subsequent petition, must be be filed filed within within one one year of year of the the date date that that the the judgment judgment of of sentence sentence becomes becomes final. final. 42 Pa.C,S. 88 9545(b)(1).

42 Pa.C,S. 9545(b)(1). "[A] "[A] becomes final judgment becomes judgment final at at the the conclusion conclusion of of direct direct review, review, including including discretionary discretionary review review in in the the Court of Supreme Court Supreme of the the United United States States and and the the Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at Pennsylvania, or at the the expiration expiration of time of time for for seeking the review. seeking the review. Commomwealth Commomwealth ». Nedab, 195 ». Nedab, 195 A.3d A.3d 957, 957, 960 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2018); 2018); Pa.CS. $$ 9545(b)(3).

42 Pa.CS. A final 9545(b)(3). A final order order of of the the Superior Court is Superior Court is any any order order that that concludes concludes an an and aa Petition appeal, and appeal, Petition for for Allowance Allowance of of Appeal with the Appeal with the Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania must must be be filed within filed within thirty thirty days days after after the the entry entry of of the the Superior Superior Court Court Order.

Order. Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1112; 1112; Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1113.

1113.

The time The time requirement requirement is is mandatory mandatory and and jurisdictional jurisdictional in in nature, nature, and and aa trial trial court court cannot cannot ignore it in ignore it in order order to to reach reach aa petition's Commonwealth v. merits. Commonwealth petition's merits. v. Cox, Cox, 146 A.3d A.3d 221, 221, 227 (Pa. (Pa. 2016) citing Commonwealth 2016) ((citing Commonwealth v, v, .Jones, .Jones, 54 A.3d A.3d 14, 14, 16 (Pa. (Pa. 2012)). An untimely 2012)). An untimely petition renders petition renders the court the court without without jurisdiction jurisdiction to to afford afford relief. Commonwealth • relief. Commonwealth • Spotz, 171 A.3d Spotz, 171 A.3d 675, 675, 678 (Pa. (Pa. 2017), 2017), The instant The instant petition petition is is facially facially untimely. untimely. The The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Superior Court affirmed this this Court's Judgment Court's Judgment of of Sentence Sentence on on January January 31, 31, 2019.

2019. Therefore, Therefore, the the instant instant conviction conviction became became final on final on March March 3, 3, 2019, 2019, when when the the thirty-day thirty-day period seek aa Petition to seek period to for Allowance Petition for Allowance of of Appeal Appeal with the with the Supreme Supreme Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania expired. expired. Petitioner Petitioner had had until until March March 3, 2020 to 3, 2020 to file file aa timely petition. timely petition. The The instant instant petition petition was was filed filed on on May May 1, 1, 2023, 2023, three three years, one month, years, one and month, and twenty-eight days twenty-eight days after after the the period period to to seek seek review review expired expired

·The Petitioner ·The Petitioner did did not not provide provide aa first first name name for for Detective Detective Holmes.

Holmes.

A PCRA A PCRA court court has has jurisdiction to review jurisdiction to review collateral collateral claims claims filed filed beyond beyond the the one-year limit one-year limit if aa petitioner if and proves alleges and petitioner alleges proves any of the any of the three three limited limited exceptions exceptions under under 42 Pa.C.S.

Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(16-(): 9545(b)(16-(): the failure () the () to raise failure to raise the the claim claim previously previously was the result was the result of of interference by interference by government officials with government officials with the the presentation presentation of the of the claim in claim in violation violation of of the the Constitution Constitution oror laws laws of of this this Commonwealth or Commonwealth or the Constitution Constitution oror laws laws of of the the United United States; States; the facts (ii) the (ii) facts upon which the upon which the claim claim is is predicated predicated were were unknown to unknown to the the petitioner and could petitioner and could not not have have been been ascertained ascertained by by the exercise the exercise of of due due diligence; or diligence; or the right (iii) the (iii) asserted is right asserted is aa constitutional constitutional right right that that was was recognized by recognized the Supreme by the Court of Supreme Court of the the United United States States or or the the Court of Supreme Court Supreme of Pennsylvania after the Pennsylvania after the time time period provided in period provided in this section this section and and has has been been held held by that court by that court to to apply apply retroactively. retroactively.

42. Pa.C.S. $$ 9545(b)(1).

42. Pa.C.S. A petition 9545(b)(1). A petition invoking one of invoking one of the the exceptions exceptions must must be be filed filed within within one year one of the year of the date date the the claim claim could could have have first first been been presented, presented, and and aa petitioner petitioner must must plead plead and and that he prove that prove he has has met met this this requirement. requirement. Commonwealth v. Peterson, Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d A.3d 1123, 1123, 1125 1125 (Pa. (Pa. 2018); 42 2018); Pa.C.S. $$ 9545()02).

42 Pa.C.S. 9545()02).

The Petitioner The Petitioner alleges that the alleges that the instant instant claim claim falls falls under under the the newly-discovered fact and newly-discovered fact and government interference government interference exceptions exceptions to to the the PCRA PCRA timeliness timeliness requirement. requirement. To To qualify qualify for for the the newly-discovered fact newly-discovered fact exception, exception, aa petitioner needs to petitioner needs to establish establish that that the the facts facts forming forming the the basis basis of of the claim the claim were were unknown unknown to to him him and and could could not not have have been been obtained obtained by by the the exercise exercise of of due due diligence, Commonwealth v. diligence, Commonwealth v. Burton, Burton, 158 A.3d A.3d 618, 618, 629 (Pa. (Pa. 2017), Due diligence 2017), Due diligence requires that aa requires that petitioner take petitioner take reasonable reasonable steps steps to to protect protect his his own own interests. See Commonwealth interests. See Commonwealth v». Sanchez, Sanchez, 204 204 A.3d 524, A.3d 524, 526 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2019) 2019) (petitioner failed to (petitioner failed to explain how the explain how the fact fact that that aa detective detective was was found liable found liable of of malicious malicious prosecution prosecution in in aa civil civil case case could could not not have have been been ascertained ascertained sooner sooner by by

the exercise the exercise of of due due diligence). A petitioner diligence). A must explain petitioner must explain why he could why he could not not have have obtained obtained the the new new fact earlier fact earlier with with the the exercise exercise of of due due diligence to satisfy diligence to satisfy the the newly-discovered newly-discovered fact fact exception. Id exception. Id the instant In the In instant petition, Petitioner claims petition, Petitioner claims that, that, on November 20, on November 20, 2022, 2022, aa law law clerk clerk in in the the law library prison law prison library provided him with provided him with aa copy of aa list copy of list of of Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Officers Officers accused accused of of misconduct entitled misconduct entitled "Right To Be "Right To Be Free." Free." Upon reviewing this Upon reviewing this list, list, he he noticed noticed that that it it included included the the above-named Detectives, above-named Detectives, whom whom he he alleges alleges were were involved involved in in his his case. case. On On February February 12, 12, 2023, 2023, Petitioner allegedly Petitioner received portions allegedly received of Detective portions of Detective Nordo's Nordo's disciplinary disciplinary file file from from the the law law clerk, clerk, who had who had obtained obtained the the documents documents from from another another inmate, inmate, In his 907 In his 907 Response, Petitioner states Response, Petitioner states that that he received he received more more information from the information from the prison law clerk prison law clerk on on June June 10th 10th and and 20th, 20th, 2023 2023 regarding regarding additional allegations additional of misconduct allegations of misconduct by Detectives Nardo, by Detectives Gaul, Jenkins, Nardo, Gaul, Jenkins, and and Verrecchia Verrecchia which which predate his predate his guilty guilty plea.' plea.' The Petitioner The Petitioner claims claims that that the the allegations of misconduct allegations of misconduct against against the the Detectives Detectives in in other, other, unrelated cases unrelated cases constitute constitute newly-discovered facts as newly-discovered facts as they were never they were never disclosed disclosed to to him him by by the the Commonwealth and Commonwealth and they were unknown they were unknown to to him him until until they were provided they were him by the to him provided to the prison prison law clerk. law In his clerk. In his 907 Response, Petitioner Response, Petitioner alleges that he alleges that he acted acted diligently diligently once once he he received received information from information from the the prison law clerk prison law clerk regarding regarding these these allegations. allegations. In In support, he attached support, he attached aa letter letter he sent he sent to to the the Philadelphia District Attorney's Philadelphia District Office on Attorney's Office on January 12, 2023 January 12, 2023 requesting information requesting information related to related to misconduct misconduct or or criminal criminal acts acts committed committed by by the the Detectives. See Pet's Detectives. See Pet's Exhibit Exhibit 5.

5.

Petitioner also Petitioner also attached attached excerpts excerpts from from an article entitled an article entitled "The "The Homicide Homicide Files" Files" that that was was originally published originally published by by the the Philadelphia Philadelphia Inquirer on May Inquirer on 7, 2021.

May 7, See Pet.'s 2021. See Pet.'s Ex. Ex. 2.

2. Newspaper Newspaper articles about articles about police police misconduct in unrelated misconduct in unrelated cases cases are are insufficient insufficient to to establish establish the the newly- newly- discovered fact discovered fact exception. See Commonwealth exception. See Commonwealth • • Reeves, Reeves, 2545 2545 EDA EDA 2022 2022 (Pa. (Pa. Super. June 9, Super. June 9,

Petitioner did Petitioner did not not include include any any additional additional information information regarding regarding allegations of misconduct allegations of misconduct against Detectives against Detectives Gaines, Ronald Gaines, Ronald Jenkins, Jenkins, Watkins, Watkins, or or Holmes.

Holmes.

Commonwealth ». Castro, (citing Commonwealth 2023) (citing 2023) Castro, 93 A.3d A.3d 818 (Pa. (Pa. 2014)).

2014)). A A newspaper newspaper article article may may contain allegations contain that suggest allegations that evidence may suggest evidence exist, "but may exist, "but allegations allegations in in the the media, media, whether whether true true or false, or are no false, are no more more evidence evidence than than allegations in any allegations in other out-of-court any other out-of-court situation," situation," Id, Id, Therefore, Therefore, articles referencing newspaper articles newspaper misconduct by the referencing misconduct the Detectives Detectives in in unrelated unrelated cases cases do do not not constitute constitute facts, and newly-discovered facts, newly-discovered and only only contain contain information information which which could could lead lead aa petitioner petitioner to to discover discover facts. facts.

Petitioner's claims Petitioner's claims fail fail to to satisfy the newly-discovered satisfy the fact exception newly-discovered fact as he exception as he has has not not established that established that he he exercised exercised due due diligence in discovering diligence in these allegations. discovering these allegations. Petitioner Petitioner could could have have discovered the allegations discovered allegations against against the Detectives earlier the Detectives earlier by making aa reasonable by making effort to reasonable effort to discover them. With discover them. With regard to the regard to the alleged misconduct of alleged misconduct of Detective Detective Nordo, Nordo, Petitioner Petitioner could could have have been obtained been obtained this this information information as as early as August early as 2017, when August 2017, when there there were were multiple multiple new new reports reports of of his misconduct his misconduct and and suspension. There were suspension. There were also also articles articles published by the published by the Philadelphia Philadelphia Inquirer Inquirer between 2019 between 2019 and and 2021 2021 for each each of of the the cases cases where where aa conviction conviction was was vacated vacated based based on on the the misconduct of misconduct Detective Nordo.8 of Detective Nordo.8 In his In his 907 Response, Petitioner acknowledges Response, Petitioner that the acknowledges that the allegations of misconduct allegations of misconduct in in each each of the of the cases cases he he cited cited were were made made prior his guilty to his prior to guilty plea on January plea on January 22, 2018. 9 Petitioner 22, 2018. has not.

Petitioner has not. offered any reasonable offered any reasonable explanation as to explanation as to why he could why he could not not have have learned learned about about these these allegations allegations earlier with earlier with the the exercise exercise of of due due diligence. See Commonwealth diligence. See Commonwealth • • Talbert, Talbert, 281 A.3d A.3d 1091 1091 (Pa. (Pa. 2022) (non-precedential Super, 2022) Super, decision) (appellant's (non-precedential decision) (appellant's Brady claim regarding Brady claim regarding allegations allegations of of

The Philadelphia The Philadelphia Inquirer Inquirer published articles regarding published articles Jamaal Simmons' regarding Jamaal Simmons' case case on on January January 21, 21, 2019, 2019, Sherman Sherman McCoy's case McCoy's case on on February 22, 2019, February 22, 2019, Gerald Gerald Camp's Camp's case case on on February February 28, 28, 2019, 2019, James James Frazier's Frazier's case case on on April April I9, I9, 2019, and 2019, and Akel Akel Gracia's Gracia's case case on on June June 4, 4, 2021, 2021, The The Philadelphia Philadelphia Inquirer Inquirer also also published published articles articles regarding regarding Reafeal Reafeal Fields' case Fields' case onon December December 19,19, 2022 2022 even though bis even though bis conviction conviction has has not not been been vacated, vacated, and and regarding Rafi Dixon's regarding Rafi Dixon's case on case on April 21, 2022 April 21, 2022 although although his his conviction conviction was was not not vacated vacated as as aa result result of of Detective Detective Nordo's Nordo's conduct, conduct, but but only only on on the basis the basis ofof ineffective ineffective assistance assistance of of counsel counsel for for failure failure to to call call an an alibi alibi witness. witness. the allegations AI! the of misconduct allegations of misconduct against the Detectives against the Detectives referenced referenced by the Petitioner by the Petitioner in in his his 907 Response were first Response were first raised between raised between 2006 2006 and and 2017.

2017. misconduct by misconduct Detectives Nordo, by Detectives Nordo, Gaul, Gaul, and and Verrecchio Verrecchio in in unrelated unrelated cases cases untimely untimely where where did not appellant did appellant not explain he could why he explain why could not not have have teamed teamed those those facts facts earlier by the earlier by the exercise exercise of of due due when the diligence when diligence the unrelated unrelated cases cases preceded his petition preceded his by several petition by several years). years).

Petitioner failed Petitioner failed to to detail detail any efforts he any efforts he made made to to discover discover these these allegations allegations prior prior to to November 2022, November 2022, which which was was over over four four years and nine years and nine months months after after he he pled pled guilty. guilty. Instead Instead of of details about providing details providing about his his efforts, efforts, Petitioner Petitioner argues argues that that he he was was unable unable to to discover discover these these allegations prior allegations to November prior to November 2022 2022 because because he he was was limited limited by by his his incarceration incarceration and and the the fact fact that that he primarily he primarily speaks speaks Spanish.

Spanish.

to the Contrary to Contrary the Petitioner's Petitioner's assertion, assertion, Petitioner Petitioner must must still still plead plead and and prove prove that that the the facts facts could not could not have have been been obtained obtained by the exercise by the exercise of of due due diligence diligence even even though though he he is is incarcerated incarcerated and and the public the record presumption public record has been presumption has been eliminated. eliminated. Petitioner Petitioner cannot cannot merely merely claim claim that that he he was was unable to unable to take take any action to any action to discover discover these these facts facts as as aa result result of of his his incarceration. incarceration. Petitioner Petitioner was was represented by represented counsel for by counsel for much much of of his his incarceration, incarceration, specifically specifically prior to his prior to his preliminary preliminary his plea throughout his hearing, throughout hearing, and sentencing, plea and on direct sentencing, on direct appeal, and during appeal, and during his his first first PCRA PCRA petition petition and subsequent and but still appeal, but subsequent appeal, still failed failed to to take take any action to any action to discover discover these these allegations. allegations.

While the While the Petitioner's Petitioner's primary primary language is Spanish, language is this does Spanish, this does not not absolve absolve him him of of his his burden to burden to plead and prove plead and that he prove that he exercised exercised due due diligence. diligence. Petitioner Petitioner cites cites no no cases cases in in support support which have which have found found that that aa different different standard standard applies for non-English applies for non-English speaking speaking petitioners. The fact petitioners. The fact that the that the Petitioner Petitioner primarily speaks Spanish primarily speaks Spanish did did not not hamper hamper his his ability ability to to discover discover these these The Petitioner allegations. The allegations. Petitioner was was clearly clearly capable capable of of obtaining obtaining this this information information with with the the exercise exercise of of due diligence due since he diligence since he has, has, in in fact, fact, accessed accessed this this information information and and relied relied on on it it in in submitting submitting extensive pleadings extensive pleadings to to this this Court.

Court.

Petitioner's language Petitioner's has not language has not previously limited his previously limited his ability ability to to access access information, information, submit submit or represent pleadings, or pleadings, himself in represent himself in this this case. case. Petitioner Petitioner represented represented himself himself on on direct direct appeal appeal in in Court after Superior Court Superior after his his appellate counsel filed appellate counsel an Anders! filed an Anders! Brief.

Brief. He He has has filed filed two pro se PCRA pro se and when petitions, and petitions, when this this Court Court appointed counsel for appointed counsel for his his first first PCRA PCRA petition, he objected petition, he objected and and requested to requested to proceed proceed pro pro se se with with PCRA counsel appointed PCRA counsel appointed as as stand-by stand-by counsel. counsel. After After aa Grazier Grazier hcaring wherein hcaring wherein this this Court determined that Court determined that an an evidentiary evidentiary hear hearn nii gg was necessary despite was necessary despite counsel's Finley letter, counsel's Finley letter, Petitioner Petitioner was was permitted to proceed permitted to proceed pro se. This pro se. This Court Court then then conducted conducted an an evidentiary hearing evidentiary hearing where where the the Petitioner Petitioner represented himself with represented himself an interpreter with an present. Based interpreter present. Based on the on the record record and and pleadings before this pleadings before this Court, Court, Petitioner Petitioner could could have have discovered discovered the the allegations allegations with the with the exercise exercise of of due due diligence diligence despite despite speaking but has Spanish, but speaking Spanish, has not not pied that he pied that he did, did, in in fact, fact, take any take any action action whatsoever whatsoever to to discover discover these these allegations, allegations, Petitioner's Brady Petitioner's claim also Brady claim also fails fails to to satisfy the government satisfy the interference exception government interference to the exception to the PCRA timeliness PCRA timeliness requirement. To qualify requirement. To for the qualify for the government interference exception, government interference exception, aa petitioner petitioner needs to needs to establish establish that that his his failure failure to to previously previously raise raise the the claim claim was was the result result of of interference interference by by government officials, government officials, and and the the information information could could not not have have been been obtained obtained by by the the exercise exercise of of due due diligence. See Commonwealth diligence. See Commonwealth v. v. Williams, Williams, 168 A,3d A,3d 97, 97, 106 (Pa, (Pa, 2017) 2017) (citing Commonwealth (citing Commonwealth A.2d v. Abu-Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1263, 1268 1268 (Pa, (Pa, 2008)).

2008)).

Petitioner has Petitioner has failed failed to to aver aver any any facts facts which establish establish that that his his failure failure to to previously raise previously raise this claim this claim was was the the result result of of government government interference interference or or that that he he exercised exercised due due diligence, as diligence, as discussed above. discussed above. He He did did not not provide provide any any details details about about any any attempts he made attempts he made to to obtain obtain this this information prior information prior to to November November 2022 2022 and and he he did did not not assert assert that that he he ever ever requested information requested information from the Commonwealth from the Commonwealth related related to to allegations allegations of of misconduct by the misconduct by the above-named above-named Detectives Detectives

See Anders See Anders •• California, California, 386 U.S, U.S, 738 (1967); see also (1967); see also Commonwealth Commonwealth MeClendon, MeClendon, 434 A,2d A,2d 1185 1185 (Pa. (Pa. 1981), 1981), before it before it was was provided to him provided to him by the prison by the law clerk. prison law clerk. See See Talbert, 281 A,3d Talbert, 281 A,3d 1091; 1091;see see also also Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Holman, 2490 EDA Holman, 2490 EDA 2021, 2021, at at 5 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Oct.

Oct. 6, 6, 2022) 2022) (non-precedential (non-precedential decision) (bald decision) assertions that (bald assertions that due due diligence could not diligence could not have have led led to to discovery of allegations discovery of of allegations of misconduct by Detectives misconduct Detectives James James Pitts Pitts and and Ronald Ronald Dove Dove are are insufficient insufficient to to establish establish timeliness timeliness of of Brady claim).

Brady claim).

Contrary to the Contrary to Petitioner's claims the Petitioner's claims in in his his 907 Response, the due Response, the due diligence diligence requirement requirement does apply does to the apply to the government interference exception. government interference There has exception. There has never never been been aa finding finding by any any court that court that the the due due diligence diligence requirement to establish requirement to establish aa timeliness timeliness exception under the exception under the PCRA PCRA violates the violates the U.S. U.S. Constitution Constitution or or any related federal any related federal case case law. law. The The due due diligence diligence requirement for requirement for the government the interference exception government interference is imposed exception is on petitioners imposed on through Section petitioners through Section 9545(b)(2). See 9545(b)(2). See Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Stokes, 959 A.2d Stokes, 959 A.2d 306, 306, 310 (Pa. (Pa. 2008) 2008) (Section 9545(b)(2) "requires (Section 9545(b)(2) "requires aa to plead petitioner to petitioner and prove plead and that the prove that the information information on on which which he he relies relies could could not not have have been been obtained earlier, obtained earlier, despite the exercise despite the exercise of of due due diligence"). The Superior diligence"). The Court has Superior Court has explained that, explained that, even assuming even the failure assuming the to disclose failure to information was disclose information Brady violation, was aa Brady violation, petitioners are not petitioners are not entitled 1.o entitled 1.o an an indefinite indefinite period to raise period to raise the the claim claim by invocation of by invocation of the the government interference government interference exception. Commonwealth v. exception. Commonwealth v. Smith, Smith, 194 A.3d A.3d 126, 133 (Pa. 126, 133 (Pa. Super. Super. 2018), The Pennsylvania 2018), The Pennsylvania Court has Supreme Court Supreme has maintained maintained that that aa petitioner must establish petitioner must establish due due diligence to satisfy diligence to the satisfy the government interference exception government interference to the exception to the PCRA PCRA time time bar. See Commonwealth bar. See Commonwealth v. v. Reid, Reid, 235 A.3d A.3d 1124, 1144 1124, 1144 (Pa. (Pa. 2020); 2020); see see also also Commonwealth Commonwealth • • Williams, 168 A.3d Williams, 168 A.3d 97, 97, 106 (Pa. (Pa. 2017).

2017).

While this While this Court Court lacks lacks jurisdiction, for the jurisdiction, for the benefit benefit of of any future proceedings, any future this Court proceedings, this Court will address will address the the merits merits of of Petitioner's Petitioner's claim. claim. After After reviewing the instant reviewing the instant petition, this Court petition, this Court finds finds that, even that, if the even if the instant instant petition was timely, petition was his claim timely, his claim is is without without merit merit and and does does not not entitle entitle him him to to relief. relief.

To succeed To succeed on on aa Brady claim, aa defendant Brady claim, defendant must must establish establish that: that: (I) (I) the the evidence evidence was was the prosecution, by the suppressed by suppressed either willfully prosecution, either or inadvertently; willfully or inadvertently; (2) (2) the the evidence evidence at at issue issue was was favorable to favorable to the the accused, accused, either either because it is because it is exculpatory exculpatory or or because it. impeaches; because it. impeaches; and, and, (3) (3) ensued. Commonwealth prejudice ensued. prejudice Commonwealth v. v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1033, 1061 1061 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2019) 2019) (citing (citing Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Roney, 79 A.3d Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 595, 607 (Pa. (Pa. 2013)).

2013)). A Brady violation A Brady violation arises arises where where the the evidence is suppressed evidence suppressed is material material to to guilt, i.e., where guilt, i.e., where there there is is aa reasonable reasonable probability probability that, that, had had that that evidence been evidence been disclosed, disclosed, the the outcome outcome of of the the proceeding would have proceeding would have been been different.

Commonwealth • Commonwealth • Cousar, Cousar, 154 A.3d A.3d 287,301 287,301 (Pa. (Pa. 2017). A reasonable 2017). A reasonable probability probability of of aa different different outcome is outcome is demonstrated demonstrated when when the the government's government's suppression of evidence suppression of evidence undermines undermines confidence confidence in the in the result of the result of the trial. Id. (citing trial. Id. United States (citing United States v. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 667 (1985)). (1985)).

The Petitioner's The Brady claim Petitioner's Brady claim fails fails as as he he cannot cannot establish establish prejudice. prejudice. Even Even assuming assuming that that the evidence the evidence was was suppressed and favorable suppressed and favorable to to him, him, Petitioner Petitioner cannot cannot demonstrate demonstrate prejudice prejudice as, as, even if the even if the Commonwealth Commonwealth had had disclosed disclosed these these allegations, allegations, there there is is not not aa reasonable reasonable probability probability that the that the result result of of the the proceedings would have proceedings would have been been different. different. Petitioner Petitioner has has failed failed to to show show that that the the above-named Detectives above-named Detectives committed committed misconduct misconduct in in his his case case and and the the allegations of misconduct allegations of ill misconduct ill unrelated cases unrelated cases do do not not establish establish that that his his guilty guilty plea plea was was entered entered into into involuntarily, unknowingly, involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently. or Commonwealth v. unintelligently. Commonwealth v. Bryant, Bryant, 260 A.3d A.3d 176 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2021), denied, 273 appeal denied, 2021), appeal 273 A.3d 509 A.3d 509 (Pa. (Pa. 2022) 2022) ("A ("A petitioner petitioner can can only only assert assert a meritorious meritorious claim claim for for PCRA PCRA relief relief by by demonstrating aa link demonstrating link between an officer's between an officer's misconduct misconduct and and the the petitioner's own case."). petitioner's own case.").

There is There is no no evidence evidence that that the the Detectives Detectives coerced coerced the the statements statements or or testimony of his testimony of his co- co- defendants, Hector defendants, Hector Rivera Rivera and and Jose Jose Padilla, Padilla, or or his his ex-wife, ex-wife, Fresa Fresa Pichardo.

Pichardo. None None of of the the witnesses witnesses has ever has ever claimed claimed that their statements that their statements to to police were false police were false or or coerced, coerced, and and Petitioner Petitioner attached attached no no certifications or certifications or affidavits affidavits from from any any of of the the witnesses witnesses in in his his case case in in which which they recanted their they recanted their

statements or statements or alleged that police alleged that committed misconduct police committed misconduct in in obtaining obtaining their their statements. At best, statements. At best, Petitioner's claims Petitioner's claims of of coercion coercion are are merely merely speculative. speculative.

There is There is also also no no cvidence that the Detectives cvidence that Detectives lied lied about about the the existence existence of of phone phone records, records, which showed which showed aa call call from from Petitioner Petitioner to to Rivera Rivera shortly shortly before before the the murder. murder. Petitioner's Petitioner's claim claim that that these records these records do do not not exist exist is is contradicted contradicted by by the the search search warrant warrant for for the the phone phone records records from from May May 2012 and 2012 and the the affidavit affidavit of of probable probable cause cause to to arrest arrest the the Petitioner, Petitioner, which which states states that that the the information information provided by provided by aa witness witness was was corroborated corroborated by by phone phone records. In his records. In his statement statement and and testimony, testimony, Rivera Rivera confirmed that confirmed that he he received received aa call call from Petitioner Petitioner shortly shortly before before the the murder. murder. In In the the instant instant Petitioner admits petition, Petitioner petition, admits that that his his plea counsel told plea counsel told him him that that the the police had records police had records which which established that established that there there was was a a call call made made between between Rivera Rivera and and Petitioner Petitioner around around the the time time of of the the murder. murder.

Even if these Even if these records records do do not not exist, it is exist, it is not not likely likely that that the the result result of of the the proceedings proceedings would would have been have been different. different. Both Both of of the the Petitioner's Petitioner's co-defendants co-defendants provided statements to provided statements to the the police police which establish which establish that that Petitioner Petitioner paid Rivera to paid Rivera to murder murder the the decedent. decedent. Petitioner's Petitioner's ex-wife ex-wife also also provided information provided information which which showed showed that that Petitioner Petitioner provided provided aa large large sum sum of of money money to to Rivera in Rivera in the days the days following following the the murder. murder. Additionally, at his Additionally, at his guilty guilty plea and at plea and at sentencing, sentencing, Petitioner Petitioner admitted to admitted to speaking speaking with with Rivera Rivera to to hire hire him him to to murder murder the the decedent decedent and and clarified clarified that that the the decision to decision to kill kill the the decedent decedent was was ultimately ultimately not not his, his, but but the the criminal criminal organization with which organization with which he he was associated, was associated, Petitioner Petitioner also also apologized apologized to to the the family family of of the the decedent, decedent, who who was was present in the present in the courtroom at courtroom at his his guilty guilty plea. plea. N.T.

N.T. 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 at at 12, 12, 20-21, 20-21, 32-34; 32-34; N.T.

N.T. 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 at at 17-23.

17-23.

Petitioner cannot Petitioner cannot show show prejudice prejudice amounting amounting to to manifest manifest injustice as he injustice as he entered entered into into his his voluntarily, knowingly, plea voluntarily, plea or intelligently, knowingly, or as previously intelligently, as decided by previously decided this Court by this Court and and Superior Superior Court. See Trial Court. See Trial Court Court Opinion, Opinion, 4/5/18, 4/5/18, at at 3-6; see also 3-6; see also Commonwealth Commonwealth • • Delarosa, Delarosa, 707 EDA EDA

2018 (Pa. 2018 (Pa. Super. Jan. 31, Super. Jan. 31, 2019). As aa result, 2019). As result, Petitioner Petitioner is is not not entitled entitled to to relief relief and and his his Brady Brady claim fails. claim fails.

For the For the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the the instant instant petition is DENIED. The Petitioner is DENIED. Petitioner is is hereby hereby notified that notified that he he has has thirty thirty (30) (30) days from the days from the date date of of this this Order Order and and Opinion Opinion to to file file an an appeal appeal with with the Superior the Superior Court.

Court.

BY THE BY THE COURT, COURT,

Barbara A.

Barbara McDermott, J A. McDermott, J

Commonwealth v. Raul Commonwealth v. Raul Delarosa, CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 Delarosa, CP-51-CR-0003855-2017 PROOF OF PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE II hereby hereby certify that II am certify that am this this day day serving the foregoing serving the foregoing filing filing upon the person(s), upon the and in person(s), and in the manner the manner indicated indicated below, below, which which service service satisfies satisfies the the requirements of Pa. requirements of Pa. R. R. Crim.

Crim. P. P. 114: 114:

District Attorney's Philadelphia District Philadelphia Office Attorney's Office Three South Three South Penn Penn Square Square Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia, PA 19107 19107 Attn: Tracey Attn: Kavanagh, Esq.

Tracey Kavanagh, Esq.

Type of Type of Service: Service: Regular Mail Regular Mail Raul Delarosa Raul Delarosa NG7501 NG7501 SCI Coal SCI Coal Township Township Kelley Kelley Drive Drive Coal Township, Coal PA 17866-1020 Township, PA 17866-1020 Type of Type of Service: Service: Certified Mail Certified Mail

Dated: August Dated: August 3, 3, 2023 2023

Scan McFadden Scan McFadden Law Clerk Law Clerk to to the the Honorable Barbara Honorable Barbara A. McDermott A. McDermott