Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049

Background

In 2006 Quawi Smith was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder and PIC; sentenced to life imprisonment. 2009 Superior Court affirmed; no PCRA appeal to PA Supreme Court.
Smith filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2009 and retained private counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition in 2012.
On January 16, 2014 the PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice proposing dismissal for lack of merit and gave a 20‑day response period; no response was filed.
The court dismissed the petition on June 12, 2014. Smith filed a pro se notice of appeal July 7, 2014; new appellate counsel was appointed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement in October 2014 asserting for the first time ineffective-assistance-of-PCRA-counsel claims.
The PCRA court found the Rule 907 notice was adequate, held Smith waived PCRA-counsel ineffectiveness claims by failing to respond within 20 days, and denied relief; Smith appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smith)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / PCRA Court)	Held
Whether Smith had a federal due‑process right to effective PCRA counsel that prevented waiver absent explicit notice in Rule 907	Smith: Rule 907 notice failed to inform him of right to effective PCRA counsel or that failure to raise such claims in 20 days would waive them; thus waiver was unintelligent and violated due process	PCRA Court: No constitutional right to counsel in collateral review; Rule 907 need only state reasons and 20‑day response; petitioner must preserve claims	Held: No federal due‑process entitlement that alters Rule 907 duties; Rule 907 notice was adequate and Smith waived claims by not timely responding
Whether claims of PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness can be raised for first time in Rule 1925(b) on appeal	Smith: Could raise PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness in his Rule 1925(b) statement after dismissal	Commonwealth: Under Pitts and related authority, such claims must be raised in response to Rule 907; raising them first on appeal is waived	Held: Claims raised first in Rule 1925(b) are waived; petitioner must preserve them in response to Rule 907
Whether court had duty to instruct an indigent petitioner how to preserve PCRA claims after Rule 907 notice	Smith: Court should have given additional instructions about preserving PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness claims	Court/Commonwealth: No duty to advise how to proceed; petitioner bears burden to move case forward	Held: No duty to instruct; petitioner bears affirmative duty to preserve claims
Whether a second PCRA petition filed while appeal of the first is pending can cure preservation defects	Smith: Attempted to rely on later filings to preserve claims	Commonwealth: Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second PCRA petition filed while appeal of first PCRA petition is pending	Held: Second petition cannot cure defects while first is pending on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Conway, 14 A.3d 101 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for PCRA denial)
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deference to PCRA court findings)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 2007) (when PCRA hearing is unnecessary)
Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review of PCRA claims)
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (due process requires meaningful opportunity in post‑conviction proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Haag, 809 A.2d 271 (Pa. 2002) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in collateral review; rule‑based right to effective PCRA counsel)
Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 1999) (right to counsel extends through PCRA appeal)
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2012) (purpose of Rule 907 notice to permit amendment/preservation)
Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Rule 907 compliance gives sufficient notice)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (ineffectiveness claims cannot be raised first on appeal absent constitutional right)
Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009) (failure to raise PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness after Rule 907 notice results in waiver)
Commonwealth v. Renchenski, 52 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2012) (petitioner bears burden to move PCRA forward)
Commonwealth v. Bardo, 105 A.3d 678 (Pa. 2014) (counsel presumed effective; petitioner bears burden to prove ineffectiveness)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 961 A.2d 80 (Pa. 2008) (petitioner must demonstrate issues are not previously litigated or waived)
Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (plurality) (capital‑case discussion where Rule 907 not implicated)
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585 (Pa. 2000) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider second PCRA petition while first is on appeal)