Com. v. Betts, T.
240 A.3d 616
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Betts was convicted after two incidents in 2013: a June 13 shooting/robbery and a June 22 vehicle chase/crash; juries convicted him on numerous felonies and the court imposed an aggregate 21–42 year sentence.
- On direct appeal the convictions and sentence were affirmed; Betts filed a timely pro se PCRA petition asserting, inter alia, appellate counsel erred and trial counsel was ineffective for cross‑examining a witness (Robert Parker) in a way that introduced other‑bad‑acts testimony.
- Appointed PCRA counsel (DeStefano) filed a supplemental memorandum and an evidentiary PCRA hearing was held; the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss.
- Betts filed timely pro se objections to the Rule 907 notice alleging PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness (including failure to challenge fingerprint evidence and appellate counsel’s omissions); the PCRA court dismissed the petition without meaningfully considering those layered claims.
- Procedural confusion followed: Betts sought new counsel, a Grazier hearing was held during the pendency of the appeal, counsel intermittently sought to withdraw and later filed appellate briefs.
- The Superior Court vacated the PCRA court’s dismissal and remanded, directing appointment of substitute PCRA counsel to litigate Betts’s preserved claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Betts preserved claims that PCRA counsel (DeStefano) was ineffective | Betts timely raised layered claims in response to the Rule 907 notice and requested new counsel | Commonwealth/PCRA court treated only counseled claims as preserved and characterized others as waived or not raised | Betts preserved the claims; the PCRA court failed to consider them and must address them on remand |
| Whether failure to raise PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness in Rule 907 response results in waiver | Betts did respond to Rule 907 and therefore complied with Pitts requirement | Authority that Pitts requires PCRA counsel‑ineffectiveness claims be raised in Rule 907 or are waived | Court held Pitts requires such claims to be raised in response to Rule 907; here Betts complied so claims were not waived |
| Whether appointed PCRA counsel can meaningfully represent Betts after Betts alleges that counsel was ineffective | Betts argued the allegation created an irreconcilable conflict and required substitute counsel | DeStefano could not both represent Betts and defend his own performance; counsel may not argue own ineffectiveness | Court held the allegations created a substantial conflict; counsel could not adequately represent Betts on those claims and substitute counsel must be appointed |
| Whether the Grazier hearing and attempted waiver of counsel during the appeal were proper | Betts maintains he did not seek to proceed pro se and sought new counsel to litigate PCRA‑counsel claims | PCRA court conducted a Grazier colloquy and permitted pro se waiver during pendency of appeal | Court found the Grazier hearing improper during the pending appeal (divested jurisdiction) and noted the record reflects confusion; remand required to sort representation and merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kenney, 732 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1999) (remand for appointment of counsel is appropriate where right to counsel was effectively denied)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (PCRA counsel‑ineffectiveness claims must be raised in response to Rule 907 or risk waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (right to effective assistance of counsel is an enforceable right on first PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (counsel cannot argue his or her own ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpretation of Pitts requiring Rule 907 preservation of PCRA counsel claims)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (standards for change of appointed counsel; irreconcilable conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 204 A.3d 371 (Pa. 2019) (affirming remand/appointment of counsel where right to counsel was effectively denied)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 220 A.3d 1086 (Pa. Super. 2019) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Pearson, 685 A.2d 551 (Pa. Super. 1996) (filing of an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed on non‑ministerial matters)