Com. v. Carmichael, S.
Com. v. Carmichael, S. No. 1254 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 11, 2017Background
- Shawn Carmichael was convicted by a jury (Oct. 11, 2013) of person not to possess a firearm, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, and resisting arrest; sentenced to 93–186 months (Nov. 18, 2013).
- This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on direct appeal (Nov. 5, 2014); no Supreme Court allowance sought.
- Carmichael filed a pro se PCRA petition (Dec. 18, 2014). PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and sought to withdraw; the court found a breakdown and appointed new counsel, identifying one arguable issue (ineffective assistance for failure to adequately brief weight/sufficiency claims) and dismissing other claims (order filed Jan. 20, 2016).
- A PCRA hearing was held (Mar. 28, 2016); the court later concluded the remaining ineffectiveness claim lacked merit and entered a final order disposing of all PCRA claims (order filed Apr. 18, 2016).
- Appellant appealed timely under the prisoner mailbox rule. The Superior Court found the appeal properly filed from the April 18, 2016 final order but remanded because the PCRA court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion failed to address the merits of the ineffective‑assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal should be quashed as untimely because Appellant did not appeal the Jan. 20, 2016 order | Carmichael contends the appeal is timely; he appealed from the final April 18 order and used the prisoner mailbox rule | PCRA court argued Appellant should have appealed the Jan. 20 order within 30 days and thus the appeal is untimely | Appeal is not quashed; Jan. 20 order was not final under Pa.R.A.P. 341, so the timely appeal from the April 18 final order is proper |
| Whether the PCRA court correctly found Appellant’s ineffective‑assistance claims meritless | Carmichael argued his counsel was ineffective (esp. for failing to adequately brief weight and sufficiency claims) | PCRA court and counsel maintained the weight/sufficiency challenge lacked merit and were adequately addressed | Merits not decided on appeal: Superior Court remanded for a proper Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion because the trial court’s opinion did not analyze the claims |
| Whether the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) by explaining its reasoning | Appellant implicitly argues the court failed to justify dismissal on the merits | PCRA court’s 1925(a) opinion addressed only timeliness and did not explain why claims lacked merit | Court found PCRA opinion inadequate and remanded for a full Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion within 30 days |
| Whether the prisoner mailbox rule establishes timely filing here | Carmichael produced DOC cash slip and filing‑dated documents | Commonwealth/PCRA court contended appeal was untimely if viewed from Jan. 20 order | Superior Court accepted prisoner mailbox evidence and concluded notice was timely for the April 18 final order |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (establishing standards for counsel withdrawal/no‑merit procedures)
- Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw in post‑conviction matters)
- Jones v. [Commonwealth], 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner mailbox rule principles for deemed filing)
- Perez, 799 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2002) (requiring reasonably verifiable evidence of deposit date under mailbox rule)
- Wilson, 911 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (recognizing prisoner mailbox rule in appeals)
- Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (consequences of failing to raise issues in a court‑ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement)
- Kovalchick, 774 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Rule 341: orders disposing of fewer than all claims are not final)
- Benchoff, 700 A.2d 1289 (Pa. Super. 1997) (purpose of Pa.R.A.P. 1925 and importance of trial court opinion)
- Kinsel, 588 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 1991) (remand for trial court to prepare Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion)