224 A.3d 682
Pa.2020Background
- In 2009 Michael Parrish shot and killed his girlfriend and their toddler; he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
- Parrish filed multiple PCRA petitions alleging trial counsel was ineffective on numerous grounds; the PCRA court held evidentiary hearings and denied relief.
- On appeal from the PCRA denial, PCRA counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement that consisted of three entirely generic, non-specific claims alleging broad ineffective assistance and mitigation failings.
- The PCRA court issued an opinion that addressed some, but not all, of the claims in the amended petitions and incorporated that opinion in response to the Rule 1925(b) order.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held the Rule 1925(b) statement was so vague it waived all appellate issues under Lord/Butler/Castillo, but also ruled that filing such a deficient statement constituted ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel per se.
- Remedy: Court remanded to the PCRA court for appointment of new counsel and for Parrish to file a Rule 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc, with the PCRA court to file a new Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parrish) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 1925(b) statement that is so vague it fails to identify any discrete issues waives all appellate claims | A vague statement that forces the trial court to guess does waive issues under Lord/Butler; no distinction between failure, untimely, or wholly deficient statement | The court noted the statement was vague but emphasized trial court opinion and briefs provided enough for review | Held: Yes — a Rule 1925(b) statement that fails to ‘‘concise[ly] identify’’ issues waives all appellate claims under Rule 1925 and prior precedent (Lord/Butler/Castillo) |
| Whether the filing of a deficient Rule 1925(b) statement by PCRA counsel constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel per se | Counsel’s filing was the functional equivalent of filing no statement and thus deprived Parrish of appellate review; that is per se ineffective | Commonwealth conceded that if waiver occurred, this would amount to ineffectiveness per se and require relief | Held: Yes — filing a Rule 1925(b) statement so deficient that it forecloses appellate review is ineffectiveness per se (applying Rosado and Peterson principles) |
| Whether a trial court opinion addressing issues excuses counsel’s noncompliant Rule 1925(b) statement | Parrish argued trial court cannot be required to assume counsel’s role; compliance remains mandatory despite existence of an opinion | Amicus and Commonwealth argued that if the trial court produced an opinion addressing the issues, waiver is inappropriate and Castillo should be narrowed | Held: No — the existence of a trial-court opinion does not excuse strict Rule 1925(b) compliance; trial-court opinions are not a substitute for a proper statement |
| Appropriate remedy when PCRA counsel is ineffective per se for filing a deficient Rule 1925(b) statement | Parrish sought reinstatement of appellate rights (nunc pro tunc) via remand for new counsel and a new Rule 1925(b) statement or via a second PCRA petition | Commonwealth agreed remand and reinstatement are proper if counsel was ineffective per se | Held: Remand ordered — appoint new counsel; allow filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc; PCRA court to file a new Rule 1925(a) opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) compliance is mandatory; failure to file statement waives issues)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631 (Pa. 2002) (Lord rule applies to PCRA appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement waives issues despite trial-court opinion)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (applied Lord/Butler in capital PCRA context; declined remand under then-inapplicable Rule 1925(c)(3))
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, 192 A.3d 1123 (Pa. 2018) (PCRA counsel’s filing that wholly foreclosed review held ineffective per se; appellee’s appellate rights restored)
- Commonwealth v. Rosado, 150 A.3d 425 (Pa. 2016) (attorney who files a brief raising only waived issues is functionally equivalent to filing nothing; ineffective per se)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (complete abandonment by counsel during appeal constitutes per se prejudice and supports nunc pro tunc relief)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (recognizes enforceable right to effective post-conviction counsel and remand as remedy when appellate review is denied)
- Commonwealth v. Halley, 870 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (failure to file Rule 1925(b) can be ineffective assistance per se)
- Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771 (Pa. 2005) (failure to demonstrate timely filing of Rule 1925(b) results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 903 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 2006) (applied Lord/Butler waiver in capital direct appeal)