Commonwealth v. Dougherty
18 A.3d 1095
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Dougherty seeks post-conviction relief in Pennsylvania Supreme Court after denial of PCRA petition.
- PCRA judge reportedly called Dougherty “vile” and directed a court reporter to alter the transcript to remove non-judicial remarks.
- Appellant's counsel moved for recusal; the PCRA judge denied the motion, raising appearance of impropriety.
- Court found the PCRA court’s 10-page opinion insufficient and remanded for appointment of a new PCRA judge to develop a full opinion.
- Remand may include an evidentiary hearing; Commonwealth’s request for post-submission communication was granted.
- Jurisdiction relinquished; case remanded for proceedings before a new PCRA judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA judge’s transcript alteration and remarks created an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal. | Dougherty argues appearance of impropriety warrants recusal. | Commonwealth contends no automatic recusal; issues to be reviewed on remand. | Remand for recusal considerations; appearance of impropriety requires further action. |
| Whether remand for appointment of a new PCRA judge was necessary to develop a full opinion. | Full, developed PCRA opinion required for appellate review. | Remand appropriate to allow proper evaluation and potential evidentiary hearing. | Remand to appoint a new PCRA judge to prepare a full opinion and address all claims. |
| Whether the denial of recusal was abused given the judge’s conduct at the March 7, 2008 hearing. | Recusal denial exacerbates appearance of impropriety. | Discretionary ruling; no automatic reversal based on isolated conduct. | Abuse of discretion acknowledged; recusal review on remand warranted. |
| Whether the remand should include an evidentiary hearing on the merits of trial counsel’s effectiveness. | Evidentiary hearing necessary to resolve deficient performance claims. | Commonwealth does not oppose a remand for hearing if appropriate. | Noted as a possible relief; court may order evidentiary hearing on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. White, 589 Pa. 642 (2006) (recusal concerns and appearance of impropriety; dissent cited)
- Joseph v. Scranton Times, 604 Pa. 677 (2009) (appearance of impropriety governs recusal after certain factors)
- Reilly by Reilly v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 507 Pa. 204 (1985) (appearance of impropriety and discretion in recusal rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 590 Pa. 376 (2006) (procedural recusal framework and timing for recusal petitions)