Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798

Background

Appellant Gregg Tchirkow pled guilty in March 2015 to delivery/possession with intent to deliver marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia; sentenced June 8, 2015 to 18–36 months plus probation. Trial counsel later withdrew.
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition in February 2016; counsel was appointed, filed an amended PCRA petition, and an evidentiary hearing was held May 26, 2016.
Appellant repeatedly demanded substitute counsel and alternately insisted on proceeding pro se; the PCRA court conducted Rule 121 colloquies and allowed counsel to withdraw when Appellant knowingly waived counsel.
While the PCRA remained pending, Appellant filed numerous pro se motions including petitions for transcripts and records; the PCRA court issued partial denials (Sept. 28 and Oct. 18, 2016) and later denied the PCRA petition on Oct. 24, 2016.
Appellant appealed pro se from the Sept. 28 and Oct. 18 orders and timely appealed the Oct. 24 PCRA denial, but his appellate briefs were incoherent and flagrantly noncompliant with Pa. R. App. P. briefing requirements.
The Superior Court quashed the appeals from the Sept. 28 and Oct. 18 orders as non-final and quashed the appeal from the Oct. 24 PCRA denial because Appellant’s brief failed to present coherent legal arguments and did not comply materially with appellate rules.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether orders of Sept. 28 and Oct. 18, 2016 were appealable final orders	Appellant treated those orders as appealable and filed notices of appeal	Commonwealth/PCRA court implicitly argued they were non-final because the PCRA remained pending	Court held the Sept. 28 and Oct. 18 orders were non-final and appeals were quashed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the Oct. 24, 2016 PCRA denial could be reviewed on appeal	Appellant filed timely appeal and submitted pro se brief raising many allegations and grievances	Commonwealth/PCRA court relied on procedural deficiencies in appellant’s brief and lack of coherent argument	Court held the Oct. 24 appeal could not be reviewed because the brief failed to comply with Pa. R. App. P. and presented no coherent legal argument; appeal quashed
Whether appellate briefs by pro se litigants receive liberal construction	Appellant relied on pro se status to excuse defects	Commonwealth argued pro se litigants must follow procedural rules and receive no special advantage	Court held pro se filings are construed liberally but pro se appellants must comply with rules and will not receive special benefits
Whether appellant validly waived counsel and proceeded pro se during PCRA proceedings	Appellant asserted desire to proceed pro se and requested new counsel at times	PCRA court documented colloquies, found waiver knowing and voluntary, and reappointed counsel when required	Court found PCRA court provided competent counsel and that appellant knowingly waived to proceed pro se at times; appointment/withdrawal process was proper

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appealability inquiry and sua sponte jurisdictional review)
Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, 915 A.2d 668 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court may inquire sua sponte into appealability)
Bloome v. Alan, 154 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discussion of Rule 341 final-order standards)
Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (indigent petitioner entitled to counsel through PCRA process)
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (substantial defects in briefs justify quash or dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules)
Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (court will not develop arguments for appellant)
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 1981) (issues not properly raised and developed will not be considered)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)