Com. v. Thomas, J., 1927 WDA 2016

Appellant Jason Phillip Thomas shot and stabbed Stephon Bibbs on April 8, 2014, then stole Bibbs’ wallet and clothing; the gun used was stolen and two others were present in the residence.
On August 7, 2014, Thomas was charged with 11 offenses including first-degree murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and receiving stolen property.
On March 5, 2015, Thomas was found guilty on all 11 charges; on April 22, 2015, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
Thomas timely appealed; this Court affirmed the judgment and granted counsel’s Anders petition for leave to withdraw.
Thomas filed a timely pro se PCRA petition; counsel filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and sought withdrawal; Thomas objected.
The PCRA court conducted a Grazier hearing, denied withdrawal, and later dismissed the petition; Thomas timely appealed and motions concerning discovery and access to documents were considered along the way, with some denied as waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion denying amendment after withdrawal	Thomas argues counsel ineffectively failed to amend	Thomas’ counsel complied with Turner/Finley and did not merit amendments	No abuse; no meritorious issues surfaced
Whether prior counsel were ineffective for not consulting about the PCRA before Turner/Finley	Thomas claims he was prejudiced by lack of consultation	Counsel thoroughly reviewed and issued a no-merit letter	No ineffective assistance; arguments lack arguable merit
Whether prior counsel were ineffective for failing to provide discovery or review with Thomas	Discovery was not adequately reviewed with him	No record showing what undiscovered evidence would alter outcome	No prejudice shown; claim fails
Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion denying a Grazier colloquy/hearing after withdrawal	Grazier hearing should have occurred	Grazier procedures were properly considered; no new counsel necessary	Denied; proper under Rule 907 and waiver principles
Whether voir dire/transcripts issues were adequately raised or should be addressed	Requests for transcripts were necessary for appeal	Issues not raised below are waived; transcripts not needed here	Waived; transcripts denied without prejudice to relief in PCRA court

Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 687 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1996) (absolute right to counsel on first PCRA petition; review standards cited)
Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Turner/Finley no-merit review requirements reiterated)
Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2016) ( Turner/Finley evaluation and withdrawal procedures clarified)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (Turner/Finley framework for counsel withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc treatment of no-merit letters and withdrawal)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (Strickland standard in PCRA context; performance/prejudice analysis)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (pro se appellate review when counsel withdrawn; Anders standard)