Com. v. Lawton, M.
1635 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- In July 2010, then-18-year-old Matthew Lawton sexually assaulted a 10-year-old guest; Lawton was convicted by jury in April 2012 and sentenced in September 2012 to 242–480 months.
- This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal on February 21, 2014.
- Lawton filed a pro se PCRA petition in February 2015, counsel was appointed, and counsel later filed a second amended PCRA petition and then a petition to withdraw.
- After the PCRA court ordered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, Lawton filed a pro se 1925(b) Statement while still represented by counsel; the court did not serve the 1925(b) Order or the pro se filing on counsel.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing the pro se 1925(b) Statement; counsel subsequently filed appellate briefing raising additional issues not in the pro se filing.
- The Superior Court concluded the pro se 1925(b) Statement was a legal nullity because Lawton remained represented and remanded for counsel to file a counseled 1925(b) Statement and for the trial court to issue a new 1925(a) opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a represented appellant may file a pro se Rule 1925(b) Statement | Lawton submitted a pro se 1925(b) asserting issues for appeal | PCRA court treated the pro se filing as operative despite counsel of record | Pro se 1925(b) is a legal nullity when counsel still represents appellant; court must remand for counseled 1925(b) |
| Whether the trial court erred by not serving the 1925(b) Order on counsel | Lawton argued he had dismissed counsel and proceeded pro se | Counsel remained of record and did not receive the 1925(b) Order or pro se filing | Court found the PCRA court erred in failing to serve counsel and in accepting the pro se filing |
| Whether the PCRA court properly relied on the pro se 1925(b) in its Rule 1925(a) opinion | Lawton’s pro se filing raised issues the PCRA court addressed | PCRA court relied on the pro se document to craft its 1925(a) opinion | Reliance on a pro se 1925(b) while counsel remains of record is improper; opinion vacated as to those matters |
| Remedies and procedural next steps | Lawton sought appellate consideration of issues in his pro se filing and counsel’s brief | Commonwealth and court must follow appellate procedure protecting hybrid representation rules | Remand ordered: counsel to file counseled 1925(b) within 30 days; PCRA court to issue new 1925(a) within 30 days; new briefing schedule to follow |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (prohibits hybrid representation; pro se filings from represented defendants must be forwarded to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (pro se Rule 1925(b) by represented appellant is a legal nullity)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 103 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA orders; findings upheld unless unsupported)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for determining whether defendant validly waives right to counsel)