Commonwealth v. Hill
16 A.3d 484
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Hill was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, and robbery, with death sentences on the murders.
- The PCRA court later granted penalty-phase relief but dismissed guilt-phase claims; the Commonwealth appealed and Hill cross-appealed.
- Rule 1925(b) directed Hill to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, which she did not file.
- Hill alleged ex parte communications between the PCRA judge and counsel, proposing non-record compliance with Rule 1925(b).
- The Court held Hill’s guilt-phase claims are waived under Rule 1925(b) due to failure to file the required statement, applying Rule 1925 (1988 version) as controlling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement waives guilt-phase issues | Hill's non-record ex parte contacts constituted substantial compliance | Waiver must apply per Rule 1925(b) strict rule | Issues waived; automatic waiver under Rule 1925(b) |
| Whether amended Rule 1925(c) remand could cure waiver | Remand could cure defects and permit full review | Amendment not retroactive here; controlling 1988 version applies; no remand | Remand under amended Rule 1925(c) not applicable; no cure for waiver |
| Whether counsel’s removal is appropriate due to Rule 1925(b) violation | Removal justified to enable proper appellate briefing | West-like remedy unnecessary; no grounds to remand for new counsel | No removal; waiver governs review |
| Whether ex parte contacts could excuse noncompliance | Off-record communications informed issues and aided compliance | Ex parte communications do not satisfy Rule 1925(b) requirements or cure waiver | Ex parte contacts do not salvage noncompliance; waiver remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415 (1998) (Rule 1925(b) mandatory; waivers automatic)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 571 Pa. 441 (2002) (Rule 1925(b) waiver applies in PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395 (2005) (bright-line waiver rule reaffirmed; timely filing required)
- Commonwealth v. Schofield, 585 Pa. 389 (2005) (waiver for Rule 1925(b) violations preserved)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 588 Pa. 218 (2006) (capital direct appeal review limited by waiver rule)
- Commonwealth v. Gravely, 601 Pa. 68 (2009) (extension and timely filing considerations under Rule 1925(b))
- Commonwealth v. West, 883 A.2d 654 (2005) (remand remedy for direct appeal ineffectiveness, not PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1 (2009) (limitations on PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims at direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 (2002) (counselineffective claims and direct appeal principles)