Commonwealth v. Brown, L.; of: Family Members

Summary

The Court held that a prosecutor’s concession cannot alone support PCRA relief, and that the PCRA court must independently determine both jurisdiction and entitlement to relief. Because Brown did not prove that the alleged witness identification existed, and because the PCRA court failed to address the facially untimely petition and resolved disputed facts without the required hearing, the order granting a new trial was reversed and the matter was remanded. The Court also required notice to and an opportunity for the Office of Attorney General to intervene in future PCRA cases in which the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office concedes relief. Justice Wecht, dissenting, would have declined King’s Bench review and rejected the mandatory intervention procedure; Justice Donohue, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have required a hearing but relied on existing procedures rather than the Court’s new intervention rule.