Com. v. Worley, R., 7 WDM 2025

Richard Worley was arrested and charged with attempted homicide and aggravated assault in September 2023, and denied bail.
Worley's counsel situation changed multiple times: he was represented by the Public Defender, hired private counsel, then had the Public Defender re-appointed, and ultimately sought to proceed pro se due to dissatisfaction with prior counsel.
On February 3, 2025, a bail modification hearing was held, where the trial court discussed Worley's representation status and stated it would appoint new counsel but allowed Worley to proceed pro se for the hearing.
After the hearing, the trial court denied Worley's motion for bail modification, and Worley filed a pro se Petition for Specialized Review with the Superior Court.
The Commonwealth argued the pro se petition was a legal nullity because Worley was represented by counsel at the time; Worley's new counsel sought to amend the petition, arguing procedural deficiencies in the bail hearing.
The Superior Court reviewed whether the petition was a nullity, and if the bail hearing violated Worley's right to counsel.

Issue	Worley's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether the pro se Petition for Specialized Review was a legal nullity due to hybrid representation	The petition should not be deemed a nullity, as counsel appointment was unclear or after the filing date	Petition is a legal nullity because Worley was represented when he filed pro se	Petition was not a legal nullity; processed on the merits
Whether the trial court erred by allowing Worley to proceed pro se at the bail hearing without a valid waiver	The bail hearing was improper because Worley did not validly waive his right to counsel	No specific argument on waiver, focused on hybrid representation	Hearing was improper; new bail hearing ordered
Whether the trial court should have conducted a colloquy per Commonwealth v. Grazier before allowing Worley to argue pro se	No colloquy was conducted and waiver was equivocal	No direct argument	Failure to conduct colloquy violated rights
Disposition of multiple pro se applications filed by Worley after the petition	Applications related to counsel and expedited review should be addressed	Applications should be considered nullities	All pro se applications denied as moot (except in forma pauperis, denied without prejudice)

Commonwealth v. Cooper, 27 A.3d 994 (Pa. 2011) (explains that certain pro se filings made while represented by counsel may not be nullities, especially regarding jurisdictional filings)
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (court must ensure valid waiver of counsel by conducting a proper colloquy)
Interest of N.E.M., 311 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2024) (Petitions for Specialized Review under Chapter 16 are expedited appeals as of right)