Com. v. Bryant, T.
44 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 13, 2016Background
- In April 2010 Bryant and an accomplice committed an armed robbery of a liquor store; Bryant was convicted of multiple robberies and conspiracy and sentenced to an aggregate term later affirmed on direct appeal.
- Bryant filed a timely first PCRA petition on November 7, 2013; appointed counsel filed a Turner/Finley motion to withdraw on January 22, 2014 and the court issued a Rule 907 notice on June 3, 2014 addressing the first petition.
- PCRA counsel was permitted to withdraw on June 3, 2014; Bryant filed a second pro se PCRA petition on October 15, 2014.
- The trial court entered an order dated December 16, 2014 denying PCRA relief; Bryant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 12, 2015, but the county clerk initially mishandled the filing.
- The Superior Court found the appeal was properly before it despite the clerk’s error, determined the December 16, 2014 order denied the first (November 7, 2013) PCRA petition, and held the court lacked authority to rule on the second petition while the direct-appeal/post-conviction process was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dec. 16, 2014 order dismissed Bryant’s first (Nov. 7, 2013) or second (Oct. 15, 2014) PCRA petition | The Dec. 16 order actually dismissed the second petition because of the long gap after the June 3 Rule 907 notice | The order and cover letter reference the June 3, 2014 Rule 907 notice and therefore address the first petition | The court held the Dec. 16, 2014 order denied the first PCRA petition |
| Whether the appeal was properly before the Superior Court given the county clerk’s refusal to accept required additional documents | N/A (challenge arose from clerk’s handling) | The clerk erred; a timely notice of appeal is self-perfecting under Pa.R.A.P. 902 | The court held the appeal was properly before it despite the clerk’s error |
| Whether the trial court could have acted on the second PCRA petition while the first petition’s denial was on appeal | Bryant implied the second petition might have been the one resolved | Commonwealth argued the court lacked authority to act on the second petition during the pendency of appellate review | The court held the trial court lacked authority to resolve the second petition while appellate review (or time to seek it) remained open |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (timely notice of appeal is self-perfecting; clerk may not reject it)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA denials and deference to PCRA court’s factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (failure to respond to Rule 907 waives only claims challenging PCRA counsel’s effectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. 2000) (PCRA court lacks authority to act on a subsequent petition while an earlier petition’s disposition is under appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures governing counsel’s motion to withdraw in PCRA proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel’s withdrawal under Turner/Finley)