Ronald Dove
Ronald Dove was fired over allegations that he covered up evidence in a homicide involving his girlfriend, and in 2017 he pleaded guilty to charges arising from the cover-up, including evidence tampering. His misconduct made front-page news in January 2013, and the Superior Court has held that date, not any later disclosure, starts the PCRA clock. No appellate opinion has granted relief on Dove's conduct; the one vacatur on record, Gibbs, followed a Conviction Integrity Unit review.
By John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026. Every statement is drawn from the court document cited beside it.
- PositionFormer detective, Philadelphia Police Department Homicide Unit
- Status of recordPleaded guilty in 2017.
- Court record4 documented findings or disclosures; 5 PCRA-related decisions summarized below
What the courts have found or the Commonwealth has disclosed
Dove "was fired by the Philadelphia Police Department for allegedly covering up evidence in an unrelated homicide matter involving a girlfriend. He ultimately was arrested and charged with: obstructing justice, unsworn falsification to authorities, tampering with/fabricating evidence, hindering prosecution, flight, and conspiracy," at CP-51-CR-0001382-2015. The charges "resulted in a judgment of sentence of thirty days by virtue of his guilty plea entered on April 26, 2017." The court took judicial notice of the docket.
Source: Commonwealth v. Karrem Johnson, 179 A.3d 1105, 1123 n.9 (Pa. Super. 2018)
Dove's "suspension and pending dismissal for attempting to cover-up a murder committed by his girlfriend made front-page news" in January 2013. By January 2015 the papers reported that criminal charges had been filed, and an April 26, 2017 article reported his guilty plea to six counts of conspiracy and evidence tampering.
Source: Commonwealth v. Hill, 202 A.3d 792, 798 and n.2 (Pa. Super. 2019)
The District Attorney's Office issues police-misconduct disclosures detailing Dove's history; one petitioner received such a disclosure on December 8, 2021. The Superior Court held the petitioner had not shown due diligence, because the charges and sentence were on publicly available dockets from 2015 and 2017.
Source: Commonwealth v. Waring, Nos. 3164, 3165, 3166 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Jan. 13, 2025)
A federal court, reciting the complaint in a civil suit, recorded that Corey Gibbs's 2013 murder convictions were vacated in December 2024 after the Conviction Integrity Unit determined he had raised meritorious claims of witness coercion and Brady violations, that Nordo and Dove had been involved in his case, and that all charges were then dropped.
Source: Gibbs v. City of Philadelphia, No. 25-2810 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2025)
PCRA cases involving Ronald Dove
Commonwealth v. Corey Gibbs
Relief. Convictions vacated December 2024 after Conviction Integrity Unit review; charges dropped.
Timeliness. Not stated.
Commonwealth v. Karrem Johnson
Timely first petition denied on the merits. Dove was a "tertiary witness" whose later convictions "have no bearing on Appellant's own case"; the evidence would be used solely to impeach. The court observed that "numerous defendants in recent years similarly and unsuccessfully have sought relief under the PCRA due to former Detective Dove's criminal misconduct."
Timeliness. Not at issue.
Commonwealth v. Shawn Hill
Second petition dismissed as untimely.
Timeliness. Dove's misconduct was a matter "of public knowledge and concern dating back to January of 2013"; charges were reported in January 2015; both were more than a year before Hill's first petition in January 2016, in which he had already alleged Dove's coercion.
Commonwealth v. Maceo Waring
Denied. After-discovered evidence and Brady claims based on Dove's questioning of two witnesses rejected as untimely.
Timeliness. A December 8, 2021 DAO misconduct disclosure did not satisfy ยง 9545(b)(1)(ii) because the 2015 charges and 2017 sentence were on public dockets and the petitioner had litigated a counseled first petition in 2017.
Commonwealth v. Kyle Little
Relief on an unrelated ineffectiveness claim (nunc pro tunc appeal). The Dove after-discovered evidence claim was not reached by the PCRA court and the Superior Court affirmed on the remaining claims for the reasons in the PCRA court's opinion.
Timeliness. Not addressed.
When the misconduct became public: the dates that control the deadline
January 2013 (suspension and pending dismissal reported on the front page, Hill); January 2015 (charges reported, Hill; on the public docket, Waring); April 26, 2017 (guilty plea, Johnson and Hill; Little gives April 25). A DAO disclosure letter received years later does not reset any of these dates.
What this means for a petition. Dove is the clearest example of the Superior Court's rule that public knowledge starts the clock. In the decisions reviewed, every Dove-based petition filed more than a year after January 2013 has been held untimely unless it was a timely first petition, and the timely ones have failed on the merits because Dove was a peripheral witness or the evidence would only impeach. A Dove petition that can succeed today needs a fact about this case that was not public: a witness Dove questioned who now says the statement was fabricated, with an affidavit, and proof that the petitioner could not have obtained it earlier.
Was this officer involved in a case you know? The first step is to determine whether the case has already been vacated and, if not, what date the courts will treat as the start of the one-year clock. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
This page reports what courts have found, what parties have stipulated, and what the Commonwealth has disclosed, as stated in the cited opinions. Allegations are identified as allegations. It is general information, not legal advice, and is not a statement about any officer beyond what the cited documents say.