Com. v. Colon, D.
Com. v. Colon, D. No. 1399 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- In 2001 Daniel L. Colon pled nolo contendere to drug charges and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 6 to 30 years; his direct appeal was denied in 2002–2003.
- On June 10, 2016, Colon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming an illegal sentence based on an allegedly unconstitutional mandatory minimum and asserting the petition was not a PCRA filing.
- Colon requested in forma pauperis status, waived appointment of counsel, and sought to proceed pro se.
- The trial court held a teleconference hearing, denied relief on the merits after concluding no mandatory minimum applied, and denied the habeas petition on July 26, 2016.
- Colon timely appealed pro se. The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition should have been treated as a first PCRA petition and whether counsel should have been appointed or a proper waiver colloquy conducted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition is actually a PCRA petition | Colon argued his claim was a habeas corpus matter, not a PCRA filing | Commonwealth asserted collateral claims like illegal sentence are governed by PCRA | Court held PCRA subsumes habeas where PCRA relief is available; petition should be treated as first PCRA petition |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner | Colon waived counsel and sought to proceed pro se | Commonwealth relied on Colon’s waiver and proceeded to merits | Court held the court must determine indigence and appoint counsel for first PCRA petitions unless a proper waiver colloquy is done |
| Whether the trial court’s waiver colloquy complied with Pa.R.Crim.P. 121 | Colon said he knowingly waived counsel | Trial court conducted a brief colloquy confirming Colon knew he had a right to counsel and chose to proceed without one | Court held the colloquy was inadequate under Robinson and Rule 121 and did not satisfy waiver requirements |
| Whether denial on merits can stand without counsel/valid waiver | Colon’s claim was denied on the merits (no mandatory minimum found) | Commonwealth argued merits decision mooted procedural defects | Court held denial cannot stand unless petitioner was afforded counsel or a valid waiver; remand required for appointment of counsel or proper waiver colloquy |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. West, 938 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA subsumes collateral relief like habeas when PCRA remedy is available)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516 (Pa. Super. 2011) (illegal-sentence and ineffective-assistance claims are cognizable under the PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Hampton, 718 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 1998) (trial court must determine indigence and appoint counsel for post-conviction petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (requirements for a valid waiver colloquy under Pa.R.Crim.P. 121)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 818 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2003) (indigent petitioner with an apparently untimely first PCRA is still entitled to counsel to explore timeliness exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2001) (error to dismiss a PCRA petition before appointing counsel even if petition appears untimely)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (PCRA relief denial cannot stand unless petitioner had assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 815 A.2d 1124 (Pa. Super. 2002) (unpublished memorandum on direct appeal)