Com. v. Johnson, A.
Com. v. Johnson, A. No. 2092 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Appellant Armoni M. Johnson was convicted in 2013 of two counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to 66–156 months; direct appeals were exhausted.
- Appellant filed a timely first PCRA petition on April 12, 2016; the PCRA court appointed Attorney Jeffrey A. Yelen to represent him.
- Attorney Yelen moved to withdraw on July 21, 2016, asserting the petition lacked merit; no no-merit letter appears in the certified record.
- The PCRA court held a hearing on October 31, 2016, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and permitted Appellant to proceed pro se without appointing new counsel or conducting a Grazier colloquy.
- On November 9, 2016 the PCRA petition was denied; Appellant appealed and the Superior Court considered whether Appellant was denied his right to counsel at the first-PCR A stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indigent petitioner is entitled to appointed counsel on a first PCRA petition | Johnson claimed ineffective assistance and Brady violations and is indigent, so he needed counsel to litigate those claims | Commonwealth/PCRA court treated counsel’s withdrawal as proper and proceeded without appointing new counsel | Court held first-time PCRA petitioners must have counsel; remanded for appointment of counsel or a proper waiver colloquy |
| Whether PCRA counsel may withdraw without the court conducting an independent review | Johnson contended withdrawal required court’s independent evaluation that claims lack merit | PCRA court allowed withdrawal based on counsel’s motion without adequate independent review/transcript support | Court reiterated that the PCRA court must independently evaluate and agree before permitting withdrawal (Rykard/Turner/Finley framework) |
| Whether a hearing can be held on a first PCRA petition after counsel’s withdrawal absent counsel | Johnson needed counsel at hearing to develop evidentiary proof of claims | PCRA court held a hearing and allowed pro se presentation without reappointing counsel | Court held PCRA court erred: Rule 908(C) and 904 require counsel be available at hearings on first PCRA petitions |
| Validity of any waiver of counsel when petitioner proceeds pro se | Johnson did not have a documented, on-the-record knowing waiver | PCRA court did not conduct a Grazier colloquy to accept waiver | Court required a Grazier on-the-record colloquy if Johnson wishes to waive counsel on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures governing counsel withdrawal and no-merit review)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no-merit letter framework for PCRA counsel withdrawal)
- Stossel v. Commonwealth, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts must raise sua sponte denial of counsel on first PCRA petitions)
- Rykard v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA court must independently review and agree with counsel before permitting withdrawal)
- Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (requirements for accepting a defendant’s waiver of counsel)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 836 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 2003) (right to counsel exists throughout post-conviction proceedings)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)