Commonwealth v. Clyburn
42 A.3d 296
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Anne L. Clyburn, former CEO of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 Federal Credit Union, devised personal expenses by misusing credit union funds.
- Trial proceeded with Appellant waiving counsel pro se after a colloquy; she later stood trial without counsel.
- The jury convicted her on multiple theft and related charges, including theft, deception, receiving stolen property, tampering, and unlawful use of a computer.
- Post-sentence motions were denied; a counseled appeal followed.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial due to a defective Rule 121 waiver colloquy and related deficiencies in informing the defendant of charges and elements.
- The court stated issues 2 and 3 were not reached because of the ruling on issue 1 and the disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? | Clyburn argues waiver colloquy insufficient and defective. | Commonwealth contends waiver adequate or prejudice showings unnecessary under Carver precedents. | Waiver defective; new trial required. |
| Did the court’s contempt threats chill self-representation? | Clyburn asserts contempt threats deterred her from effective self-representation. | Clyburn’s self-representation proceedings were appropriate despite threats. | Court did not address due to disposition; issue not decided on merits. |
| Did the court properly advise/testify rights when self-representation was allowed? | Clyburn claims she was not advised of the right to testify. | No explicit obligation to revisit right to testify given other defects. | Not addressed on the merits due to disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (pro se rights require a knowing, voluntary waiver; not harmless error when denied)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 213 A.2d 99, 101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1969) (signed waiver alone insufficient; requires thorough oral inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Payson, 723 A.2d 695 (Pa. Super. 1999) (defects in waiver colloquy cannot be gauged by self-representation quality; must be corrected)
- Commonwealth v. Houtz, 856 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 2004) (vacate for defective Rule 121 colloquy; remand for new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Meehan, 427 Pa. Super. 261, 628 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1993) (preclusion of prejudice analysis in defective waiver context)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 393 Pa. Super. 88, 573 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Super. 1990) (waiver issues analyzed in context of lack of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Bastone, 321 Pa. Super. 232, 467 A.2d 1339 (Pa. Super. 1983) (relevant to waiver and counsel considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Carver, 292 Pa. Super. 177, 436 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 1981) (premature prejudice analysis in absence of counsel at preliminary stages)