Com. v. Quiles-Lopez, M.
1605 MDA 2021
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 30, 2022Background
- Appellant Miguel Angel Quiles‑Lopez pleaded guilty in 2014 and received an aggregate sentence of 27 to 140 months; no direct appeal was taken.
- In 2015 Quiles‑Lopez filed a PCRA petition to reinstate appellate rights; the PCRA court granted it and reinstated post‑sentence/appeal rights.
- A later direct appeal was dismissed in 2017 after counsel failed to file an appellant’s brief and did not file the court‑ordered certification that the client was notified.
- Quiles‑Lopez filed pro se motions to modify sentence in 2019 and again on November 4, 2021; the trial court treated the 2021 filing as a post‑judgment motion (not a PCRA petition) and denied it on November 17, 2021.
- Superior Court remanded to determine entitlement to appointed counsel because the 2021 pro se filing should have been treated as Quiles‑Lopez’s first PCRA petition; appellate counsel later filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw.
- The Superior Court concluded Anders compliance was deficient (counsel failed to identify the trial court’s errors regarding PCRA characterization and appointment of counsel), denied counsel’s withdrawal, vacated the trial court order, and remanded for the PCRA court to proceed (counsel to consult client and file an amended PCRA or Turner/Finley letter).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Quiles‑Lopez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of counsel’s Anders/Santiago compliance and right to withdraw | Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was wholly frivolous and sought leave to withdraw | Appellant contended counsel missed meritorious issues and disagreed with the no‑merit conclusion | Anders compliance was inadequate; counsel’s petition to withdraw denied |
| Characterization of the Nov. 4, 2021 pro se filing | Trial court treated it as a post‑sentence motion to modify sentence and denied as untimely | Appellant asserted the filing was his first PCRA petition and thus cognizable as PCRA relief | Superior Court held the 2021 pro se filing should have been treated as a PCRA petition |
| Right to appointed counsel on first PCRA petition | Trial court did not appoint counsel, treating the filing as a non‑PCRA motion | Quiles‑Lopez argued he was entitled to appointment under Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) and controlling precedent | Court held a first PCRA petitioner is entitled to counsel; failure to appoint was error |
| Remedy and next steps | Trial court dismissed procedural defaults and refused relief | Appellant sought vacatur and remand for counsel appointment and proper PCRA processing | Court vacated the order, denied counsel’s withdrawal, and remanded for counsel to consult client and file an amended PCRA or Turner/Finley letter within 45 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (content requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 818 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2003) (indigent defendant entitled to counsel for first PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (first PCRA petition triggers right to counsel despite facial untimeliness)
- Commonwealth v. Kutnyak, 781 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2001) (right to counsel on first PCRA petition even if issues appear noncognizable)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (importance of counsel on a first PCRA petition to preserve rights)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for permitting a defendant to proceed pro se)
- Commonwealth v. Betts, 240 A.3d 616 (Pa. Super. 2020) (court must raise sua sponte the failure to appoint counsel on a first PCRA petition)