Whether appellant Hanson's PCRA's were timely under 42 Pa. C.S. §9545(b) due to government interference and refusal to release documents

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW TY. WHETHER APPELLANT HANSON'S PCRA'S WERE TIMELY UNDER 42 Pa. C.S. §9545(b) DUE TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND REFUSAL 70 RELEASE DOCUMENTS. I]. WHETHER APPELLANT HANSON'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S FAILURE YO DISCLOSE A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH CO-DEFENDANT TIMOTHY SEIP, AND THE REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A COPY OF TIMOTHY SEIP'S MARCH 20, 1986 PCRA HEARING. wee TABLE _OF CONTENTS . TABLE OF CITATIONS iii BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Wii STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR JURISDICTION iv CONCISE STATEMENT OF CASE, RULE 14.19 v,V1 HABEAS CORPUS, 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) Vti,viii REASON FOR NOT FILING IN DISTRICT COURT 1X CONCISE ARGUMENT, RULE 14.1h 1-14 CONCLUSION ; 15,16 _ ’ APPENBIX .