Com. v. Dreher, J.
756 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- In 2010 Dreher pled guilty to third-degree theft and was sentenced to time served to 23 months plus three years probation; he was paroled from the bench.
- Dreher incurred multiple probation/parole revocations over subsequent years for various violations and was resentenced each time.
- On October 19, 2015 Dreher filed a pro se pleading titled “Wish to be Accorded Due Process and Appeal Original Sentence,” which the court characterized as a PCRA petition.
- Montgomery County Public Defender was initially appointed but sought to withdraw for conflict; the PCRA court permitted withdrawal and denied Dreher’s petition as untimely on February 12, 2016 without appointing replacement counsel.
- Dreher mailed a pro se notice of appeal (prison mailbox rule) on March 3, 2016; counsel was appointed the next day and later filed a Turner-Finley/Anders no‑merit petition to withdraw on appeal.
- The Superior Court held that Dreher was entitled to counsel on his first PCRA petition, vacated the dismissal, denied appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, and remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the pro se notice of appeal timely so as to confer jurisdiction? | Dreher: mailed within 30 days; prisoner mailbox rule makes it timely. | Commonwealth: appellate counsel’s later supplemental notice was filed after 30 days. | Held: Dreher’s pro se notice was timely under prisoner mailbox rule; Superior Court has jurisdiction. |
| Did the PCRA court err by dismissing Dreher's first PCRA petition without counsel? | Dreher: requested counsel and was entitled to counsel on a first PCRA petition. | Commonwealth: petition was untimely and frivolous. | Held: Court erred; first PCRA petition requires appointment of counsel regardless of apparent untimeliness; vacated and remanded. |
| Was appellate counsel’s Turner/Finley (Anders-style) submission adequate to permit withdrawal? | Appellate counsel: complied with Turner/Finley and Anders procedures and sent required notices. | Dreher: contested the framing and sought leave to respond; Court ordered additional notice. | Held: Counsel complied with technical Turner/Finley requirements, but withdrawal denied because trial court failed to appoint counsel at the first-instance PCRA stage. |
| Should the case be remanded and what should appointed counsel do? | Dreher: requested appointment of counsel and opportunity to amend or raise exceptions to time bar. | Commonwealth: urged dismissal as untimely. | Held: Remanded; newly appointed PCRA counsel must assist Dreher in assessing exceptions to the PCRA time-bar and may file an amended petition or a new Turner-Finley no‑merit letter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (requires counsel filing a petition to withdraw in post‑conviction cases to provide a no‑merit statement and notify the petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural framework for counsel withdrawal in PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2001) (first PCRA petitioners are entitled to counsel despite apparent untimeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (timeliness of appeals implicates appellate jurisdiction)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw on the ground that appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders‑type protections and procedures in Pennsylvania)