Com. v. Hughes, T.
Com. v. Hughes, T. No. 1984 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Tyree T. Hughes was convicted by a jury in October 2006 of multiple robbery-related offenses and possession of a firearm without a permit and sentenced to 15–30 years in December 2006.
- Hughes filed a pro se PCRA petition (Mar. 28, 2008); counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCRA petition (Aug. 6, 2008); a hearing occurred Dec. 22, 2008.
- While the counseled PCRA remained pending, Hughes filed a second pro se PCRA petition on March 23, 2009; the record does not show any withdrawal of appointed counsel or a waiver allowing Hughes to proceed pro se.
- The PCRA court granted relief on an ineffective-assistance claim in July 2009, but this Court reversed that decision on appeal in September 2010; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in February 2011.
- On August 25, 2016 Hughes filed another pro se filing characterized as a motion to amend/supplement his March 2009 pro se petition; the PCRA court treated the 2016 filing as an untimely PCRA petition and dismissed it on November 9, 2016.
- The Superior Court concluded the pro se 2009 and 2016 filings were of no legal effect because Hughes remained represented by counsel, and therefore quashed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order disposing of counseled PCRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred in deeming Hughes’ Aug. 25, 2016 PCRA petition untimely and denying an evidentiary hearing on actual innocence/miscarriage of justice claims | Hughes argued the petition (an amendment/supplement to his Mar. 2009 pro se petition) raised actual innocence and judicial breakdown/government interference that excuse timeliness and warrant a hearing | Commonwealth/PCRA court treated the Aug. 2016 filing as a facially untimely PCRA petition that did not plead a statutory timeliness exception | Court held the 2016 and 2009 pro se filings are legally ineffective because Hughes remained represented by counsel; dismissal and timeliness ruling therefore have no legal effect and the appeal was quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (pro se filings by a defendant represented by counsel are legal nullities)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993) (no constitutional right to hybrid representation; courts need not consider pro se filings of represented appellants)
- Commonwealth v. Glacken, 32 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellant must permit counsel to represent or properly waive counsel to proceed pro se)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (on-the-record inquiry required before accepting waiver of counsel at post-conviction or appellate stages)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 29 A.3d 393 (Pa. Super. 2011) (PCRA court erred by addressing pro se PCRA petition filed by represented petitioner)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1999) (courts are not required to parse pro se filings when qualified counsel represents defendants)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 854 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court has discretion whether to accept an untimely concise statement)