Com. v. Walters, J.
735 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. on June 4, 2011, Officer Peter O’Brien observed James Walters driving a minivan, crossing the fog line multiple times with drastic overcorrections, and suspected intoxication.
- Officer O’Brien activated lights and siren, used spotlight and intercom, and was in a clearly marked police vehicle; Walters continued driving for about 2.5 miles and was ultimately forced off the road.
- Walters was charged with fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer (75 Pa.C.S. § 3733) and driving while operating privilege suspended or revoked (75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(1)); acquitted of DUI.
- After ~32 continuances over ~4 years and multiple attorneys, Walters’ counsel sought to withdraw shortly before trial; the court denied withdrawal, set trial date, and Walters appeared without counsel, saying he had fired his attorney.
- The trial court denied Walters’ continuance request, found he forfeited his right to counsel, appointed standby counsel, and allowed Walters to proceed pro se; a jury convicted him of eluding police.
- Post-sentence motion reduced a fine; Walters appealed raising (1) erroneous requirement to proceed pro se, (2) failure to instruct jury on statutory defenses, and (3) insufficiency/weight of evidence for eluding conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Walters) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by requiring Walters to proceed pro se | Court: defendant’s repeated delays and counsel substitutions forfeited right to counsel; no waiver colloquy required when right is forfeited | Walters: had retained private counsel (Wray) who failed to appear after being told to continue; any consent to withdrawal was not knowing/voluntary, violating 6th Amendment and PA Const. art. I, § 9 | Court affirmed: defendant forfeited right to counsel due to dilatory conduct; proceeding pro se was proper (no colloquy required) |
| Whether court erred by not instructing jury on statutory defenses to fleeing/eluding | Commonwealth: standard instruction sufficient; no request or objection made to request special defense instructions | Walters: argued he may not have known the vehicle was police, roadside debris made stopping unsafe, and he stopped when safe—statutory defenses applied and should have been submitted to jury | Court affirmed: no request/objection to instructions; pro se status doesn’t entitle special treatment; standard instruction adequate |
| Whether evidence was insufficient/conviction shocks the conscience | Commonwealth: officer gave visual/audible signals (lights, siren, spotlight, intercom); clearly marked vehicle; Walters drove 2.5 miles and had to be forced off road—supports willful failure to stop | Walters: did not increase speed or take evasive maneuvers; did not willfully fail to stop; acted out of concern for safety | Court affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, sufficient evidence showed willful failure to stop and guilty verdict was supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 905 A.2d 1003 (Pa. Super. 2006) (defendant forfeits right to counsel where dilatory conduct and repeated substitutions/withdrawals occur)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739 (Pa. 2014) (pro se litigants are held to same standards as attorneys; courts need not provide special benefit)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review; assess whether evidence viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth supports conviction)