Commonwealth v. Faulk
21 A.3d 1196
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Faulk was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault after trial conducted in his absence in Westmoreland County.
- Appellant was represented by multiple court-appointed attorneys during pretrial and trial, with repeated pro se filings by Faulk.
- Trial took place January 5–7, 2005; sentencing followed approximately one month later after pre-sentence report.
- Faulk challenged counsel effectiveness and various pretrial issues; he also sought to proceed pro se at different times.
- Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition in January 2009; PCRA court denied relief on July 9, 2010, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err in denying Faulk’s request to proceed pro se at pretrial? | Faulk argues Sixth Amendment and Pa. Const. rights were violated by denial of self-representation. | Court held Faulk did not make a clear, unequivocal request to proceed pro se. | No reversible error; no unequivocal request established. |
| Was Faulk deprived of self-representation due to trial court’s handling of pro se status? | Claim that Pezz[e] erred in not allowing pro se status and in appointing counsel. | Record shows lack of a clear pro se request; hybrid representation not required or allowed. | Waived/meritless; no error proven. |
| Was Faulk denied effective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge lack of colloquy on self-representation? | DeMatt ineffective for not insisting on colloquy about waiving counsel. | No merit; no clear request to proceed pro se and no deficient strategy established. | Meritless; no ineffective-assistance shown. |
| Was Faulk denied effective trial counsel for failing to withdraw in face of an actual conflict? | Faulk asserts conflict of interest and counsel could have advanced self-representation. | Claim undeveloped; no specific conflicts or prejudice shown. | Unproven; claim rejected. |
| Did the PCRA court improperly require signed witness certifications under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d) to grant evidentiary hearing? | Brown does not require sworn affidavits; certifications suffice. | PCRA court granted time and still Faulk failed to provide certifications. | No abuse of discretion; witness-certification requirement satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. El, 602 Pa. 126, 977 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 2009) (right to self-representation and need for colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Davido, 582 Pa. 52, 868 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2005) (unequivocal pro se request analyzed under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (ineffective-assistance framework and standard for reviewing for PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa. 103, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (presumption of effective counsel; three-prong test for ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 767 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2001) (9545(d) witness-certification requirements)