Commonwealth v. Kelsey
206 A.3d 1135
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Joseph Kelsey was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and related offenses arising from a robbery and fatal shooting; he received life without parole plus consecutive and concurrent sentences for other counts.
- Direct appeal affirmed except the robbery sentence was vacated as merged with murder; Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- Kelsey timely filed a pro se first PCRA petition raising >20 claims, including Rule 600 violations, alleged perjury and Brady issues, defective charging documents, and extensive ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) allegations (e.g., failures to inform about plea offer/right to testify, investigate, retain experts, file suppression motions, request instructions).
- The PCRA court appointed counsel who filed a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter and motion to withdraw; that letter discussed only a subset of Kelsey’s claims and largely failed to analyze most IATC allegations.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, Kelsey responded (asserting counsel’s inadequacy and seeking amendment), then dismissed the petition without holding a hearing; the court apparently allowed counsel to withdraw.
- On appeal, the Superior Court held that PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter was seriously deficient because it did not identify or explain the meritlessness of most issues in Kelsey’s first PCRA, and vacated the dismissal and remanded for appointment of new PCRA counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kelsey) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelsey was deprived of the right to counsel on his first PCRA where appointed counsel filed an inadequate no‑merit letter and petition was dismissed without further counsel action | No‑merit letter failed to address most claims; counsel ineffective; Kelsey was denied meaningful representation on his first PCRA | Commonwealth conceded the letter was inadequate and supported remand for new counsel (PCRA court did not find waiver) | Held: Vacated dismissal and remanded for appointment of new PCRA counsel because Turner/Finley letter was deficient and Kelsey had right to counsel on first PCRA |
| Whether a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter must (and did) list each issue and explain why it is meritless | Kelsey: letter must address every issue raised in a first PCRA; failure to do so deprives petitioner of counsel | PCRA counsel: argued issues were meritless but did not analyze most of them | Held: No‑merit letter was insufficient under Pitts/Turner standards; counsel must set forth nature/extent of review, list issues, and explain why each lacks merit |
| Whether the PCRA court’s independent review can cure an inadequate no‑merit letter | Kelsey: entitled to counsel before merits determination even if petition seems meritless | Commonwealth/PCRA court relied on its own review and dismissed on merits | Held: Independent court review does not cure deprivation of the statutory right to counsel on a first PCRA; error is denial of counsel, not correctness of merits review |
| Remedy required where first PCRA counsel’s no‑merit letter is deficient | Kelsey: remand for appointment of new counsel and opportunity to amend or for counsel to file an adequate no‑merit letter | Commonwealth: agreed remand appropriate | Held: Remand with instructions to appoint new PCRA counsel; new counsel may file amended petition or an adequate no‑merit letter and move to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (establishes no‑merit letter withdrawal framework)
- Finley v. Commonwealth, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel withdrawal on collateral review)
- Pitts v. Commonwealth, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (no‑merit letter must set forth review, issues, and reasons they lack merit)
- Cherry v. Commonwealth, 155 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2017) (right to counsel on first PCRA and remand when counsel’s no‑merit letter is deficient)
- Glover v. Commonwealth, 738 A.2d 460 (Pa. Super. 1999) (dismissal without adequate no‑merit letter deprives petitioner of counsel)