Commonwealth v. Lavar Brown (Petition of Family Members of Murder Victims)
On King's Bench review, whether the PCRA court properly granted a new trial on a facially untimely Brady claim that the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office conceded, and what safeguards apply to conceded PCRA relief.
Summary by John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026.
- CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Docket32 EM 2023
- DecidedJune 16, 2026
- DispositionReversed and remanded
- OpinionRead the opinion | Court PDF
What the court held
Justice Dougherty's opinion reversed. The PCRA court never made the threshold finding that Brown's claim, raised more than thirteen years after his judgment became final, satisfied a timeliness exception under 42 Pa.C.S. ยง 9545(b)(1), and the parties' agreement cannot confer jurisdiction; on remand the court must decide timeliness claim by claim before reaching the merits. On the merits, Brown did not prove the factual predicate of his Brady claim, and the PCRA court erred by granting relief without the evidentiary hearing Rule 908(A)(2) requires when a material fact is disputed, whether or not the parties wanted one. Finding that the District Attorney's Office had conceded relief without record support, withheld evidence, and submitted a false stipulation, as part of a pattern across more than one hundred concession cases, the Court held that whenever the Philadelphia DAO concedes PCRA relief, the PCRA court must notify the Office of Attorney General and allow it to intervene before ruling.
Why it matters. A prosecutor's concession no longer streamlines PCRA relief in Philadelphia. The Attorney General must be notified and may intervene as a party, the court must independently confirm jurisdiction and timeliness for each claim, and disputed facts require a hearing even when both sides ask for a ruling on the papers. Build the factual record with admissible evidence rather than stipulation.
Separate opinions
Justice Brobson (joined by Justice Mundy) and Justice McCaffery concurred; Justice Donohue, joined by Chief Justice Todd, concurred and dissented, rejecting the intervention mandate; Justice Wecht dissented, viewing the intervention rule as a separation-of-powers violation.
Does this decision affect a case you know? The window to act on a new decision can be as short as one year from the date it was announced. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the opinion before relying on it.