In this capital case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s fourth PCRA petition. The defendant raised three issues on appeal. First, the Court held that, because the PCRA court determined that the claims in the defendant’s petition did not necessitate an evidentiary hearing, he was not entitled to the appointment of counsel. Moreover, the interest of justice did not require the appointment of counsel. Next, the Court ruled that the defendant failed to show the PCRA’s timeliness requirements were fundamentally unfair as applied to him. Therefore, the PCRA court correctly determined the defendant’s petition was untimely. Finally, the defendant did not demonstrate a connection between the material requested in his discovery request and his underlying claim. Thus, exceptional circumstances did not warrant discovery.
