Com. v. Chaney, D.
Com. v. Chaney, D. No. 447 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Appellant Donald R. Chaney, Jr. was convicted of simple assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and two counts of aggravated assault; sentenced to 6½–13 years; direct appeal affirmed.
- Appellant timely filed a pro se first PCRA petition; PCRA counsel was appointed and filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and a petition to withdraw.
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice intending to dismiss the petition and set a 20‑day window for objections.
- Appellant, believing he was unrepresented, mailed a pro se motion for an extension to object (cash slip dated Feb. 13, 2016; envelope postmarked Feb. 16, 2016). The PCRA court deemed the motion untimely and a forbidden hybrid filing and dismissed the PCRA petition.
- Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal and a waiver of counsel; the PCRA court never conducted a Grazier colloquy nor explicitly resolved counsel’s petition to withdraw.
- Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded: PCRA court must either appoint new counsel or conduct a Grazier hearing so Appellant can respond to the Rule 907 notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chaney) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of prisoner mailbox rule to Appellant’s Feb. mailing | The mailbox rule deems the Feb. 13/16 mailing timely | Court treated filing as late and therefore untimely | Mailbox rule applies; court erred in disregarding it (remand) |
| Validity of pro se filing while counsel of record had filed to withdraw | Chaney acted pro se after believing counsel withdrawn; his pro se filings were proper | Court treated pro se filing as a prohibited hybrid filing | Court improperly labeled filing hybrid without resolving counsel status; remand required |
| Whether PCRA court properly addressed counsel’s Turner/Finley petition to withdraw | Counsel’s petition remained unresolved; Appellant lacked representation | PCRA court asserted petition was denied by operation of law without record support | Court vacated dismissal because counsel’s withdrawal was not properly resolved and right to counsel was impaired |
| Need for Grazier colloquy when defendant seeks self‑representation on PCRA appeal | Chaney’s later waiver form should be accepted | PCRA court did not hold Grazier hearing | Court held Grazier hearing or appointment of new counsel is required on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (right to counsel through first PCRA petition; Grazier hearing required if defendant seeks self‑representation)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (on‑the‑record inquiry required to insure waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 741 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 1999) (mere execution of waiver form is insufficient to establish valid waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 911 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discussion of the prisoner mailbox rule for inmate filings)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. Super. 2011) (hybrid filings and limits on pro se submissions while counsel represents defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedural standard for counsel’s request to withdraw in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (combined with Turner for appellate review of counsel’s no‑merit submissions)