Commonwealth v. Jette
23 A.3d 1032
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Appellee Jules Jette was convicted in 2001 after a bench trial of offenses involving sexual assaults against an eight-year-old boy.
- Appellee filed pro se PCRA petitions in 2003-2004; counsel was appointed and filed no-merit letter under Finley/Turner procedures.
- Appellee filed objections; counsel amended petitions, adding several claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.
- PCRA court dismissed all ineffectiveness claims after an evidentiary hearing in 2006.
- Appellee appealed; the Superior Court employed the so-called Battle procedure, requiring counsel to file a petition for remand and to address pro se ineffectiveness claims attributed to appellate counsel.
- This Court overrules the Superior Court’s Battle procedure as contrary to this Court’s governing rules on hybrid representation and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Battle procedure violates Ellis II on hybrid representation | Jette argues Battle violates Ellis II by forcing remand for new counsel when alleging appellate counsel ineffectiveness | Commonwealth argues Ellis II allows remand for new counsel in such contexts | Battle procedure rejected; hybrid representation improper |
| Whether PCRA counsel must petition remand and remit to new counsel | Jette contends remand procedure is necessary to address pro se claims | Commonwealth contends no such remand is required under proper precedent | Remand not required under Ellis II; remand limited to proper appellate review process |
| Scope of proper remedy after pro se filings by represented appellee | Jette asserts extra rounds of collateral review facilitated by Battle | Commonwealth asserts need to control process and maintain focus on meritorious issues | Battle rejected; cure is refer pro se filing to counsel and proceed per established rules |
| Impact on finality and efficiency of PCRA review | Jette argues serial review would undermine finality | Commonwealth argues procedure protects rights while maintaining finality | Disapproved; Court promotes orderly, final resolution without hybrid review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993), 534 Pa. 176 (1993) (no right to hybrid representation on appeal; governs remand for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993), 626 A.2d 1137 (1993) (Ellis II; limits on mixed representation on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 537 Pa. 581, 645 A.2d 223 (1994), 537 Pa. 581 (1994) (prohibits pro se filings after counsel filed appellate briefs; refutes hybrid review)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 555 Pa. 233, 724 A.2d 293 (1999), 555 Pa. 233 (1999) (PCRA context; no requirement to review pro se filings when represented)
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 408 Pa. Super. 9, 596 A.2d 165 (1991), 408 Pa. Super. 9 (1991) (McBee standard for remand to appoint new counsel for ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Battle, 879 A.2d 266, (Pa. Super. 2005), 879 A.2d 266 (2005) (Battle procedure: remand for new counsel when pro se ineffectiveness alleged)
- Commonwealth v. McBee, 513 Pa. 255, 520 A.2d 10 (1986), 513 Pa. 255 (1986) (remand for new counsel when appellate counsel claims of ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 874 (2010), 606 Pa. 1 (2010) (claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875 (2009), 603 Pa. 1 (2009) (limits on raising ineffectiveness on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 602 Pa. 10, 977 A.2d 1089 (2009), 602 Pa. 10 (2009) (rejects sua sponte hybrid review; cautions against serial review)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003), 573 Pa. 426 (2003) ( Bomar exception to direct-appeal ineffectiveness review)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 537 Pa. 581, 645 A.2d 223 (1994), 537 Pa. 581 (1994) (reiterates limitations on hybrid representation)