Com. v. Teter, R., Com. v. Teter, R. No. 1400 MDA 2016

Police executed a search warrant at appellant Russell C. Teter’s residence and found methamphetamine, marijuana, multiple firearms (loaded), drug paraphernalia, cash used in a controlled buy, cell phones, computers, and other items. Teter had a prior felony drug conviction that prohibited firearm possession.
Teter was charged with drug offenses, UFA violations, and receiving stolen property; he entered a negotiated guilty plea on April 22, 2015, receiving an aggregate sentence of 5 to 10 years, imposed at plea.
On April 25, 2016, Teter filed a pro se habeas corpus motion challenging his sentence as involving an unconstitutional mandatory minimum; the Commonwealth treated it as a PCRA petition and conceded timeliness but argued no mandatory minimum applied.
The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss, denied relief, and never appointed PCRA counsel. Teter, who had been represented by the public defender at plea, appealed pro se and argued the court erred by not appointing counsel for his initial PCRA petition.
The Superior Court vacated the denial and remanded for appointment of counsel, holding that appointment of counsel is mandatory for a first PCRA petition even if the petitioner did not expressly request counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA court erred by dismissing Teter's first PCRA petition without appointing counsel	Teter: the court should have appointed counsel for his initial PCRA proceeding and not dismissed the petition without counsel	PCRA court/Commonwealth: no appointment was required because Teter never requested counsel and did not represent he was unable to afford counsel; also argued sentence did not include a mandatory minimum	Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for appointment of counsel; appointment of counsel for a first PCRA petition is mandatory under Pennsylvania rules and precedent

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (appointment of counsel mandatory for initial PCRA proceeding)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 818 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2003) (Rule 904 requires appointment of counsel for first PCRA petition even if petition appears untimely)
Commonwealth v. Guthrie, 749 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2000) (remand for appointment of PCRA counsel where pro se petitioner did not request counsel)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (habeas petitions that raise issues cognizable under the PCRA must be treated as PCRA petitions)
Commonwealth v. Duffey, 713 A.2d 63 (Pa. 1998) (indigent defendants entitled to appointment of counsel for initial collateral attack)
Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 232 A.2d 623 (Pa. 1967) (longstanding rule providing counsel for indigent petitioners on initial collateral attack)
Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (waiver-of-counsel procedures required before allowing pro se PCRA representation)