Carlton F. Watler III, a 41-year-old Harrisburg man serving a 110- to 220-month prison sentence for a Johnstown rape, lost his bid for a new trial last week when a state appeals court rejected his post-conviction petition. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that Watler failed to meet statutory deadlines and didn’t exercise due diligence in uncovering a decade-old false-reporting conviction belonging to his victim.
The 2016 Johnstown Investigation and DNA Match
The case stems from a September 2016 sexual assault on the 200 block of Ohio Street in Johnstown. While the victim provided a description of her assailant to police, authorities didn’t make an immediate arrest at the time. A break in the cold case arrived in May 2018 when police investigated a suitcase left outside an abandoned building on the 300 block of Ohio Street. Investigators found a letter addressed to Watler in Harrisburg inside the luggage. When authorities contacted Watler to request a DNA sample, his profile matched evidence collected from the victim’s clothes. A Cambria County jury subsequently convicted Watler of two counts of rape, along with single counts of sexual assault, simple assault, and kidnapping. He is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution Phoenix in Montgomery County.
Withheld Evidence Claims and the 2002 False Reports Record
Watler petitioned the Pennsylvania Superior Court for relief, arguing that the prosecution deliberately suppressed exculpatory evidence during his trial before Cambria County Judge Tamara R. Bernstein. Specifically, the defense discovered that the victim had pleaded guilty in 2002 under another name to providing false reports to law enforcement in Blair County regarding a fabricated physical assault. During a post-conviction hearing, the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted Watler testified that he had a duty to hand over exculpatory material but was unaware of the 2002 conviction. The prosecutor explained that the Blair County conviction didn’t appear in the National Crime Information Center criminal history report provided to the district attorney’s office, stating under oath that he would have turned it over immediately if it had been in his possession. Watler ultimately uncovered the conviction himself through a Right-to-Know petition while conducting legal research.
Superior Court Ruling on Timeliness and Due Diligence
A Superior Court panel consisting of Judges Anne E. Lazarus, Mary Jane Bowes, and Timika Lane evaluated Watler’s appeal and found it procedurally time-barred. Under Pennsylvania law, defendants have one year from the date their judgment of sentence becomes final to file a post-conviction petition. Watler filed his appeal three years after his case was closed. Although state law provides narrow exceptions to the one-year rule—such as government interference or newly discovered evidence—defendants must prove they exercised due diligence in pursuing the information. The appeals court noted that once Watler actually began searching for records, he obtained the victim’s criminal history with relative ease, yet took three years to secure it. Because Watler failed to demonstrate a modicum of due diligence, the panel ruled he did not qualify for the timeliness exceptions and affirmed the denial of a new trial.