Commonwealth v. Lasko, 14 A.3d 168

In 2006, police were alerted to threats with a handgun outside Lasko's residence; a warrant issued for the residence yielded a marijuana plant in plain view, prompting a second narcotics search warrant.
Subsequently, police located the handgun, marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia inside the home during the second search.
In 2007, court-appointed counsel appeared; Lasko initially indicated willingness to plead guilty, but did not plead; counsel sought a suppression motion which was not filed.
There was a long gap with no case activity until 2008 when a conference was scheduled and later jury selection set; on July 7, 2008, Lasko expressed dissatisfaction with counsel and requested to proceed pro se after a waiver colloquy.
On July 9, 2008, Lasko, representing himself, litigated and the suppression motion was denied; following a jury trial he was convicted of several drug offenses and related paraphernalia charges.
Sentencing on August 5, 2008 occurred, with Lasko requesting a continuance to secure counsel who was hospitalized; no admission of counsel, and a 15–30 month aggregate term was imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lasko validly waived counsel	Lasko did not knowingly waive rights; counsel was resistant and failed to pursue suppression; he wanted new counsel and a suppression motion.	Waiver colloquy conducted; Lasko chose to represent himself after expressing dissatisfaction with prior counsel.	Vacate judgment and remand for new trial due to invalid waiver and need for proper inquiry.
Whether the suppression issue and counsel’s conduct require a new trial	Counsel failed to file a suppression motion and pressured plea; this violated Sixth Amendment rights and merits a new trial.	Issues were addressed at trial; waiver issues control; suppression denial stands.	Remand for new trial; no need to pass on second and third evidentiary claims.

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (requires a penetrating, comprehensive on-the-record waiver colloquy)
Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 437 Pa. 262, 263 A.2d 351 (Pa. 1970) (defendant's right to choose trial over plea guided by counsel)
Commonwealth v. Powell, 787 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2001) (co-defendants' waiver of counsel under inadequate appointment context)
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (voluntariness of a guilty plea requires independent defendant decision)
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) (plea must follow defendant's own wisdom, not counsel's)
Commonwealth v. Servey, 434 Pa. 433, 256 A.2d 469 (Pa. 1969) (precedent on defendant's control over trial strategy when counsel is in conflict)
Commonwealth v. Fairman v. Cavell, 423 Pa. 138, 222 A.2d 722 (Pa. 1966) (written waiver alone is insufficient to establish knowing waiver)
Commonwealth v. Houtz, 856 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 2004) (colloquy must be penetrating and on-the-record)