Commonwealth v. Stossel
17 A.3d 1286
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Stossel pleaded nolo contendere on September 5, 2006 to attempted unlawful contact with a minor and criminal use of a communication facility, receiving a 5-to-10-year prison term.
- Appellate relief was denied on direct review; this Court affirmed on November 8, 2007, and no permission to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was sought.
- On June 2, 2010, Stossel, pro se, filed a PCRA petition using a DOC form, checking that he did not have a lawyer and also indicating he did not want a lawyer to represent him.
- The PCRA court did not appoint counsel and dismissed the petition as untimely on June 8, 2010 without a hearing.
- Stossel appealed arguing the petition should be considered under the PCRA timeliness exceptions, and that he was entitled to counsel; the court of appeals held that he was entitled to representation and that a Grazier/Rule 121 colloquy was required before any waiver of counsel could be accepted.
- The Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded to conduct a Grazier hearing to ensure a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel; if retraction of pro se status occurs, new counsel must be appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court failed to conduct a Grazier colloquy | Stossel argues waiver of counsel was not knowingly and intelligently made without on-record colloquy. | Commonwealth contends untimeliness should control, and waiver could be assumed from form-based indication. | Remand for Grazier hearing to determine knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver. |
| Whether indigent status requires appointment of counsel on first PCRA petition | Stossel asserts he is indigent and should have counsel appointed for his first petition. | Commonwealth argues no right to counsel if waiver is effective. | PCRA court must appoint counsel on first PCRA petition if petitioner is indigent. |
| Whether checking a no-lawyer box on the DOC form suffices to waive counsel | Stossel's notation to waive counsel should be reviewed with a Grazier-compliant colloquy. | Form indication should be treated as waiver if supported by record. | Such indication does not substitute for a Grazier/Rule 121 colloquy. |
| Whether the untimeliness of the petition forecloses relief given the improper waiver | Grazier remedy may permit consideration of the petition despite timeliness concerns. | Untimeliness remains a barrier absent valid exceptions. | Remand to conduct Grazier/Rule 121 inquiry; timing issue to be revisited after hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (requires on-record colloquy to ensure knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Meehan, 427 Pa. Super. 261, 628 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1993) (waiver of counsel in PCRA context; four of six Rule 121 inquiries apply)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (requires on-record inquiry to validate waiver of counsel in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Davido, 582 Pa. 52, 868 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2005) (post-conviction waiver considerations guidance in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (denial of PCRA relief requires counsel when appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 787 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2001) (waiver and counsels’ role considerations in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 866 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2005) (remanding for appointment of counsel when first PCRA petition is involved)
- Commonwealth v. Stout, 978 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2009) (writ relief and counsel considerations in PCRA remand)