Com. v. Snider, J.
2013 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Joel Robert Snider pleaded guilty but mentally ill to third-degree murder and burglary (shooting death on July 5, 2010) and received an agreed aggregate sentence of 30–60 years on August 8, 2014.
- Snider filed a pro se, untimely notice of direct appeal on July 7, 2015 and simultaneously requested appointment of counsel; the trial court denied counsel but did not address the notice of appeal.
- Days later Snider filed a pro se PCRA petition asserting counsel failed to consult about a direct appeal and that mental illness impeded his ability to secure an appeal within the 30-day period; he later was appointed counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition incorporating those claims.
- The PCRA court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Snider appealed the denial asserting entitlement to a hearing and to nunc pro tunc relief to pursue a direct appeal.
- The Superior Court identified a procedural breakdown because the initial untimely notice of appeal was left unresolved and concluded the filing should have been treated as a PCRA petition, warranting appointment of counsel and consideration as part of the PCRA matter.
- The Superior Court vacated the PCRA court’s order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve whether Snider is entitled to nunc pro tunc relief; other PCRA issues were left for possible resolution at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Snider's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unresolved untimely notice of appeal should have been treated as a PCRA petition and required appointment of counsel | The untimely notice and later pro se PCRA show he sought an appeal but was prevented by mental illness and counsel's failure to file; he is entitled to nunc pro tunc relief | The court process left the notice unresolved; the Commonwealth did not contest treating the filing as a PCRA matter in this opinion | The Superior Court held the untimely notice should be treated as a PCRA petition and that Snider should have been appointed counsel; remand for hearing was required |
| Whether the PCRA court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on Snider's claim for nunc pro tunc relief | A hearing is necessary because factual issues (mental illness, counsel consultation, inability to timely appeal) could entitle him to nunc pro tunc relief | A hearing is unnecessary if claims are patently frivolous or unsupported by record | The court held a hearing is required because a breakdown in the judicial process left unresolved factual issues that could justify nunc pro tunc relief |
| Proper remedy for the procedural breakdown leaving the notice of appeal unresolved | Treat initial filing as PCRA and consider amended petition as including a request for nunc pro tunc relief | Alternatively treating it as an unresolved direct appeal could make the PCRA premature | The court chose to treat the initial filing as a PCRA petition to avoid prejudice and remanded for further proceedings |
| Scope of remand—whether other PCRA claims may be heard | Snider requested relief on multiple grounds, including voluntariness of plea due to mental illness | Commonwealth argued focus should be on the unresolved appeal issue | The court limited its mandate to resolving the unresolved notice/nunc pro tunc issue but allowed the hearing to address other factual issues if parties deem them relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 36 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA court’s denial without a hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 2001) (hearing not required for patently frivolous PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1997) (appellate court must examine PCRA claims against certified record to decide if hearing was required)
- Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural standards for evaluating PCRA petitions and hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2012) (an evidentiary hearing is not a fishing expedition for speculative ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely direct appeal should be considered under PCRA when filed after judgment is final)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (treatment of unresolved direct appeals and premature filings)