Commonwealth v. Willis
29 A.3d 393
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Willis pled guilty to homicide by vehicle while DUI, homicide by vehicle, unlicensed driving-related accident, and DUI; sentenced to 6.5–13 years and 7 years’ probation; no direct appeal filed.
- Willis filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (Feb 16, 2010) alleging ineffective plea counsel; counsel Elgart appointed but sought to withdraw with Turner/Finley no-merit letters.
- PCRA court held hearings (Aug 9, 2010; Nov 22, 2010) while Elgart petitioned to withdraw prior to ruling, and Elgart acted as Willis’s counsel.
- PCRA court denied the PCRA petition (Nov 23, 2010) and granted Elgart leave to withdraw; Willis later attempted to appeal, but Clerk of Courts initially rejected, then accepted a second pro se notice of appeal on Jan 18, 2011.
- Appellate court found multiple errors: Willis was effectively denied counsel on the first PCRA petition; hybrid representation occurred; Turner/Finley letters were not properly filed; remand for a new, counseled PCRA hearing was required.
- The panel vacated the denial and remanded for further proceedings with new counsel; jurisdiction to review was preserved despite initial timeliness issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Willis have effective counsel on the first PCRA petition? | Willis asserts denial of counsel violated rights; Elgart failed to advocate. | Commonwealth argues proper withdrawal procedures were followed; no outright denial proven. | Yes, counsel denial occurred; merits require remand for new counsel. |
| Did hybrid representation occur and did it affect the PCRA proceedings? | Willis maintained pro se amendments alongside counsel’s representation. | Commonwealth contends hybrid representation is improper and prejudicial. | Hybrid representation improper; remand necessary for proper counseled proceedings. |
| Were the Turner/Finley no-merit letters properly filed and did court have authority to permit withdrawal? | Letters were not properly filed in the certified record; withdrawal not authorized. | Counsel sought withdrawal with no-merit letters; court should allow withdrawal. | Withdrawal letters not properly filed; court lacked authority to grant withdrawal. |
| Should the order denying PCRA relief be vacated and remanded for new proceedings? | Yes, due to counsel issues and improper proceedings. | Remand not required if issues meritless. | Vacate and remand for counseled PCRA hearing with new counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (denial of PCRA relief cannot stand without counsel; right to counsel in PCRA)
- Nagy v. Best Home Serv., Inc., 829 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prothonotary cannot reject timely notices; filing deemed timely when received)
- Commonwealth v. Alaouie, 837 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prothonotary lacks authority to deem timely notices defective; timely filing presumed)
- Commonwealth v. White, 871 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appointed counsel required for first PCRA petition; remand for counseled appeal if counsel not provided)
- Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 1999) (remand when appellant lacks counsel on appeal from first PCRA petition)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 965 A.2d 280 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sua sponte dismissal of appointed counsel error; remand guidance)