167 A.3d 1
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Jalil Williams was convicted of drug offenses and, after multiple violations of probation (VOP) and subsequent proceedings, was sentenced to lengthy prison terms affirmed on direct appeal in 2014.
- Williams filed a timely pro se first PCRA petition on November 19, 2014; retained PCRA counsel later filed amended petitions but allegedly ceased representing Williams after a Rule 907 notice issued.
- Williams filed pro se motions asserting indigency and that his retained PCRA counsel had abandoned him and failed to raise issues Williams wanted pursued; he asked the court to appoint new PCRA counsel.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice, then dismissed the PCRA petitions in February 2016 without appointing replacement counsel or resolving Williams’ pro se complaints of counsel abandonment; the record does not show a PCRA hearing occurred.
- Williams appealed, raising claims including illegal VOP sentence/double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of VOP and appellate counsel, failure to award credit for time served, and PCRA counsel ineffectiveness for failing to raise certain claims.
- The Superior Court found Williams was entitled to counsel throughout his first PCRA proceedings, concluded the record was incomplete and counsel abandonment allegations required further proceedings, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for appointment of PCRA appellate counsel and for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel on first PCRA / counsel abandonment | Williams contends retained PCRA counsel abandoned him after Rule 907 notice and he is indigent, so court should appoint new counsel | Commonwealth implicitly contends petition was properly dismissed as meritless or previously litigated and counsel remained of record | Superior Court: Williams was entitled to counsel; record shows possible abandonment and indigency; vacated and remanded for appointment of PCRA counsel and further proceedings |
| Legality of VOP sentence / double jeopardy | Williams argues the VOP sentence was illegal and constituted double jeopardy | Commonwealth maintained sentencing and VOP proceedings were proper | Not decided on merits due to incomplete record; remanded for further proceedings |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel re: failure to note acquittal on VUFA charge | Williams says appellate counsel failed to inform court that he had been acquitted of the firearm offense relevant to the VOP | Commonwealth maintains appellate counsel’s performance did not warrant relief or issues are meritless | Not decided; remanded so appointed PCRA counsel can pursue or litigate the claim |
| Failure to award credit for time served | Williams claims trial court failed to order credit for pretrial and prior custody credits | Commonwealth contends sentencing-credit issues were without merit or previously litigated | Not decided; remanded for further proceedings and representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 970 A.2d 455 (Pa. Super. 2009) (right to counsel for first PCRA petition and through appeals; rule-based right is critical)
- Commonwealth v. Kenney, 732 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1999) (indigent petitioner entitled to appointment of counsel for first PCRA petition; remand required if right effectively denied)
- Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (governs VOP hearing procedures referenced by parties)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 159 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Superior Court decision affirming Williams’s underlying sentence on direct appeal)