COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RODNEY SOTO COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM AVILES COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MELVIN WISE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RODNEY SOTO COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM AVILES COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MELVIN WISE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSE SANCHEZ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEVIN WILSON COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EUGENE HUDNELL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PETE ROBINSON No. 165, 172, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 185 PHL 2008 2009 PA Super 200 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 10/16/2009
	Appeal from the PCRA Order of November 20, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal, No. CP-51-CR-1204871-2001, CP-51-CR-1203211-2001 CP-51-CR-0511611-2002, CP-51-CR-1000691-2001, CP-51-CR-0405351-2004, CP-51-CR-1200351-2001, CP-51-CR-0507581-2001
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
These consolidated appeals are from the orders entered by the Honorable D. Webster Keogh denying defendants’ petitions for Post Conviction Relief, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-9546 (PCRA). The PCRA petitions were filed when it was discovered through a newspaper article that a chemist for the police department, Colleen Brubaker, was a drug addict and had been taking confiscated pain pills for her own use and possibly selling other types of drugs to support her habit. The PCRA court denied relief on the grounds that defendants failed to prove that the newly discovered evidence would have compelled a different result at trial. While the individual cases are different, we agree with Judge Keogh that, viewing the totality of the circumstances, none of the defendants has shown that the evidence of Brubaker’s improper activity would have compelled a different result at any of the trials. Therefore, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here