Com. v. Hallman, V., Com. v. Hallman v. No. 2882 EDA 2016

Hallman was convicted of multiple offenses (robbery, aggravated assault, theft, firearms offenses, resisting arrest) and sentenced in 2007 to 20½ to 44 years; direct appeals were denied.
Hallman filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (2010), amended pro se (2011), and counsel later filed an amended PCRA petition (2014) raising two ineffectiveness claims concerning accomplice-liability jury instructions and prosecutor’s handling of amended bills.
At the November 28, 2014 PCRA hearing, Hallman sought to proceed pro se; the court conducted a Grazier colloquy, found his waiver knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and appointed counsel served as standby.
The Commonwealth was prepared to argue only the two issues in counsel’s amended petition (Petition 3); the court offered Hallman a continuance to expand his pro se petition or proceed solely on Petition 3 issues.
Hallman, after consulting standby counsel, chose to proceed only on the issues in Petition 3; the PCRA court denied relief on June 30, 2015.
On appeal Hallman argued he was effectively denied counsel on his first PCRA petition because the court limited argument to counsel-prepared issues and did not reinstate counsel; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Hallman’s Argument	Commonwealth’s Argument	Held
Whether Hallman was completely denied the right to counsel on his first PCRA petition	The court should have reinstated appointed counsel after limiting argument to issues in counsel’s amended petition; proceeding pro se deprived him of counsel	Hallman knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel and chose to proceed only on the issues counsel had prepared; no request to reappoint counsel or to limit waiver	Waiver was valid under Grazier; Hallman knowingly waived counsel, declined a continuance to expand claims, and was not deprived of counsel

Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (trial court must conduct on-the-record colloquy before accepting post-conviction waiver of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (once waiver is competent it remains in effect absent substantial change in circumstances or a request to reappoint counsel)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements of a proper colloquy: understanding right to counsel, consequences of waiver, and risk of losing rights if not timely raised)