Commonwealth v. Cooper
27 A.3d 994
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Cooper was convicted in 2004 after a bench trial of aggravated assault and related offenses and sentenced to prison plus probation.
- In 2008, at a violation of probation hearing, the court revoked probation and imposed a new sentence; a post-sentence motion and notices of appeal followed.
- Cooper filed a pro se notice of appeal in Superior Court while represented by counsel, and counsel filed a timely counseled post-sentence motion.
- The trial court denied the counseled motion; counsel then filed a separate timely notice of appeal.
- The Superior Court administratively quashed the counseled appeal as duplicative and quashed the pro se appeal as premature, remanding to the trial court for merits review of the counseled motion.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the quashings/remand and remanded for merits review of Cooper’s direct appeal from the VOP judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pro se notice of appeal by a counseled defendant can be treated as merely premature. | Commonwealth argues prematurity, not nullity, under Rule 1701 and 720/721. | Cooper contends hybrid representation governs; pro se filing does not destroy the counseled appeal's viability. | Pro se filing is premature, not a nullity; merits review should proceed. |
| How Rules 720/721 interact with Rule 1701 and the effect on jurisdiction when a timely counseled motion is filed. | Rule 720/721 govern timing; a counseled post-sentence motion after a pro se notice negates premature status. | The interplay supports reconsideration rights; trial court retains jurisdiction long enough for merits review. | The Rules, read together, permit merits review on the counseled appeal; remand unnecessary. |
| Whether Mincavage and related Superior Court rulings improperly imposed prematurity/voidness on the pro se filing. | Mincavage supported treating pro se as premature; trial court jurisdiction remains for post-sentence motions. | Mincavage misapplies the rules given these facts; hybrid representation should be disapproved. | Mincavage disapproved; the pro se filing was not an absolute nullity and merits review should proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mincavage, 945 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. 2008) (premature pro se appeal after counseled post-sentence motion not fatal to later merits review)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993) (pro se filings by counseled defendants inappropriate; no hybrid representation)
- Commonwealth v. Piscanio, 530 Pa. 293, 608 A.2d 1027 (1992) (pro se appeal by counseled defendant; pro se filings have no legal effect while represented, in some contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 327 Pa. Super. 390, 476 A.2d 7 (1984) (pro se appeal by counseled defendant rejected)
- K.H. v. J.R., 573 Pa. 481, 826 A.2d 863 (2003) (premature civil appeal treated as filed after final judgment under Rule 905(a))