Commonwealth v. Castro

¶ 10 granting Appellee’s Order motion summary judgment

for reversed. Case relinquished.

remanded. Jurisdiction Pennsylvania,

COMMONWEALTH of

Appellee

Jorge CASTRO, Appellant. Luis

Superior Pennsylvania. Court of Dautrich, Sept. Reading, appel-

Submitted 2000. D. Michael lant. Filed Jan. Hobart, Atty.,

Alisa R. Asst. Dist. Read- Com., appellee. ing, CAVANAUGH, Before STEVENS BROSKY, JJ.

BROSKY, J. is an This from an order dismissing a PCRA question presents this case is whether petition prepared duly deposited in is “filed” when the United States Mail and addressed to Courts’ failure to docket the petition.1 Because we resolve the above affirmative, question in the we reverse. 2, 1995, February jury convicted trial of two counts of assault, recklessly endangering aggravated simple person, another three counts of as- sault, one count of terroristic threats possessing one count of instrument February crime. On court. filed On we October affirmed judgment of sentence. subse- for allowance of quently Questions filed, Appellant's Statement of Present- Courts on Appeal questions ed on raises two for our whether the court erred in clarity, they review. Restated for are: wheth- petition summarily without a hear- aforesaid er the se PCRA he mailed from ing failure to due to the Clerk Courts’ to the Clerk of Courts on docket the and which was received the Clerk of 1997, Quinn to to Pennsylvania Supreme Appellant to Mr. wrote appeal Court, on but denied him he had to file a his was inform failed 22, to No was taken month petition. March PCRA Less than a 1997, the United later, 20, Appellant Court.2 com on had standard/preprinted form for pleted in pendency appeal, During supplied post conviction relief at the Appellant a mere fact two of and mailed to the Clerk of Courts Court, Appellant this taken to County. Appellant’s Berks PCRA con- filed a under the 22, 1997, but the was received on of trial allegations tained of ineffectiveness of Courts did not docket the Clerk 1, 1995, counsel. On March tion, petition Ap to instead dismissed, to prejudice, due was without counsel, Gail pellant’s pendency Appellant’s of direct conflict/direct Chiodo, Appellant’s who noted was last However, allega- to this Court. due to the of There is no evidence counsel, record.4 Appel- of of tions ineffectiveness any Welsh, that Ms. Chiodo took action whatever record, lant’s counsel of Glenn D. respect Appellant’s petit with to to from Esquire, permitted was withdraw ion.5 Appellant’s representation appeal and on Chiodo, rep- was to Esquire appointed Gail July Appellant submit- Appellant in to

resent his direct ted another this Court. “Post of Courts which entitled the dis- Nunc Pro Tunc.” Un- Apparently undaunted Conviction Petition 1997, 22, premature Appellant’s offering May missal of his like of apparently duly not content to await docketed on decision this Court direct The was forwarded Appellant private Keller, who, Thom- retained D. on the Honorable Scott Quinn, in for Esquire, July Roman, as August appointed Thomas peti- eventual PCRA Esquire Appellant. A mere Despite into a “fee entering tion. his later, day Appellant’s three weeks and one Mr. agreement” represent Appellant, appointed counsel filed Motion With- appearance never Quinn filed an for that there were no issues asserting draw any lant time. September to be On pursued. of merit again fend was once left to Unfortunately, not for reasons for himself when Mr. Roman’s motion record, Quinn did appearing on the Mr. day, Also granted. withdraw was discharge obligations Appellant his its intent indicating court issued an order petition Appel and never filed a PCRA petition without taking to dismiss the PCRA lant’s behalf a considerable Instead, April hearing. from On October with Appellant.3 fee (sic) appearance as soon determining deadline counsel of records 2. This is relevant for ESQ. Quinn gives as Thomas R. me back $4,000 paid did I a PCRA that he him to file portion italicized of the sen- subject of a fee 3. This matter became file.” it, clearly through tence had line dispute Appellant’s resolved in favor legible. Disputes the Fee Committee of the Phila- delphia Bar Association. 5.Appellant’s and answer to notice brief why took indicates that after It is uncertain the Clerk of Courts intent dismiss step. possible explanation is that his had been forwarded this unusual A informed Chiodo, Chiodo, prior to wrote Ms. on the PCRA to Ms. he checked box period filing a petition indicating that he was tion, if she would be typed the text in immedi- and asked her counsel. Ap- respect the PCRA. ately on his this box indicated that action behalf underneath response was forth- pellant "currently with an contends no contact (sic) coming. prepared whom to enter 9022(c)8, response to the notice of intent to dismiss R.Crim.P. to forward the received, same, having been the court dismissed to counsel rather than docket the Appellant’s petition. As fate would have chose not it, following day the court received and instead forwarded the docu- Appellant’s response to the notice of intent ment to last known counsel of record, result, vigorously opposed to dismiss which Appel- dis- Gail Chiodo.9 As a lant, hundreds, missal. who took the same as thousands, if not of convicted individuals Appellant October him, post- before has been told that his sought reconsideration of the order dis- conviction collateral attack on his convic- missing “prisoner his and cited the tion/judgment of sentence cannot be re- grounds mailbox rule” as for reconsidera- it viewed because is tion. On November the court granted Appellant’s motion for reconsider- In examining procedural 14, ation and vacated the October posture present of the the PCRA dismissing Appellant’s peti- order Appellant’s May concluded as brief, tion. proved The consideration how- 1997, docketed, petition had not been it ever, as that day same another order was and, thus, had not “filed” was not a dismissing Appellant’s entered “valid” Consequently, Appellant filed a timely appeal from the nullity court treated the first aas 9, November 1999 order his subsequent petition and focused on the brings which us to the cur- July filed on finding juncture. rent untimely. Although we understand rationale, in PCRA court’s our view the present 8 In the case it disputed is not analysis essentially court’s elevates what is that sometime had unsuc- a ministerial act of the Clerk of Courts cessfully pursued an appeal of his convic- legal a substantive only factor not tion, he filed PCRA pro se.6 In controls the timeliness of respect, this case is not differ- tion but right also his substantive to seek literally cases, ent than hundreds of posture relief. find contrary this more, that pass through this Court on an concepts process fundamental of due as Moreover, annual disputed basis. it not is well as the essential mail that when “posted” envelope box rule. containing pro he was within considerably more restrictive time re- the act of actually docketing Since quirements forth set in the 1995 amend- an act is outside the control Yet, ments to the PCRA.7 litigant, Clerk of of the it contrary would seem Courts, perceiving process concepts due hinge litigant’s “represented by apparently counsel” and rights valuable to this act. Stated alterna- perceiving itself obligated, as tively, Pa. it would seem inconsistent with no- te) 6. Law Dictionary Black’s defines the term case in which a defendant is oneself; represented by attorney, se as follows: "For own if the defendant one's behalf; motion, notice, filing a lawyer....” without a submits for written the term signed by or document that has not been technically se does not mean the status of attorney, the defendant’s the clerk of court’s representation, without but it, shall not docket or record but shall for- taking steps by act of oneself for oneself. ward it to the defendant’s receipt. 7. The time for to the United expired Court on June 9.This was done the fact that Thus, Appellant's judgment 1996. of sentence lant’s indicated that Gail Chiodo was "final,” purposes, became for PCRA as of that purposes him for PCRA day obligating petition by him to file a PCRA that counsel that had been retained for the June 1997. See, Appellant’s pro done so. 9022(c) tion, provides: paragraph Rule litigants litigant of fundamental fairness notice. Other

tions solely appeals to entrust to the rights could lose valuable due choose their acts, act, pro- failure to an administrative clerk’s vagaries of mail and the concepts Fundamental of fairness stamping incoming papers, office. cess focus suggest need to forced to do they relate to the actions if other liti- so his situation. And rights. mail, or loss of essential preservation they can gants do choose to use the Indeed, concept unlikely into the place directly at least the notice mailbox permeates “prison the so-called Postal Ser- hands of United States happenstance. rule” mere (or carrier); private express vice by calling they progress can follow its ¶ 11 In the landmark of Fallen v. cases the no- the court to determine whether States, 84 S.Ct. United U.S. stamped, tice has been received (1964) 12 L.Ed.2d 760 and Houston awry they knowing goes the mail Lack, 487 U.S. 108 S.Ct. at the last personally can deliver notice (1988), Su- L.Ed.2d 245 the United States monitoring will moment or their adopted that treated a preme Court a rule to demon- provide them with evidence prisoner’s mailing a notice of neglect either or strate excusable equivalent “filing” the the notice. stamped notice was on the date the first dilemma of a considering Court the prisoners the court it. Pro se “filing” the mail in prisoner documents via any precautions; cannot take of these 37(a), Fallen and concluded that Rule definition, nor, lawyers they do have required the of a notice of which precautions can take who these read days, within ten could not be Worse, prisoner has them. the ar- literally to bar Fallen’s forwarding to the no choice but entrust ten-day peri- rived after of the prison to authori- of his because, od, circumstances of the supervise he or ties whom cannot control all that could Fallen “had done every incentive to and who have expected letter to reasonably get to the in advance delay. No matter how far required its destination the to prisoner the delivers his notice Fallen, days.” S.Ct. at U.S. authorities, can never be prison the he Expounding upon this con- further stamped it will ultimately get sure that Lack, cept in Houston v. the Court offered delay “filed” on time. And if there is following commentary on the matter: to suspects prisoner is attributable analysis conclude that of the authorities, unlikely to prison he is concurring opinion applies in Fallen it, for his proving have means of petitioner here and that thus filed his prevents him from monitor- confinement period the requisite 30-day notice within process distinguish ing sufficiently deadline, when, he three before the part authorities delay prison on the delivered the notice to authorities mail or the court from slow service forwarding the District Court. notice on the stamp clerk’s failure seeking to prisoners The situation of law, unaided received. date Unskilled appeal without the aid of counsel pris- leave the unable to prisoners take the unique. Such cannot on, processing his control over the monitor litigants other can take to necessarily as he notice ceases as soon processing their notices public officials only hands it over re- and to ensure that the court clerk prison au- he has access—the to whom stamps ceives and their notices of he information thorities —and the oth- 30-day deadline. Unlike before have is he delivered likely will the date per- litigants, pro prisoners er cannot authorities the notice to see those sonally travel to the courthouse stamped on his ultimately the date “filed” or to stamped that the notice the court establish the date on which notice.

¶ 12 commentary may represent The above and the at- the same a ministerial fail- part, Appellant may holding tendant make clear that the term ure or error its partly, wholly responsi- even be deemed completely equated “file” cannot be ble for the Clerk of Courts’ failure purely docketing ministerial act of Nevertheless, docket the the fail- Rather, receipt legal of a document. ure to docket the arrival “filing” act of a document is far more a does not control the determination of much, legal construct that focuses as Appellant’s petition whether or not more, upon the plac- act of the wholly “filed.” It is a matter that ing ap- the document in the hands of the post-dates “filing” propriate ministerial office than in ac- docketing tual act of ¶ Moreover, we conclude that document.10 in failing the Clerk of Courts erred prisoner 13 The mailbox rule has been docket the PCRA as well as expressly adopted in Pennsylvania and ex- petition Appellant’s for “filing” petitions. tended to the of PCRA Appellant correctly mer counsel. As Little, According out, to Commonwealth v. 716 points prior stewardship counsel’s (Pa.Super.1998), A.2d 1287 ap “[t]he is deemed to be over once the direct provides peal process expired mailbox rule that the date of de- has or been exhaust livery Pennsylvania ed. Rule of Criminal Proce by PCRA the defen- 316(c)(iii) dure states “where counsel has proper prison dant to the authority or to a been assigned, assignment such shall be prison mailbox is considered the date of judgment, including effective until final filing petition.” (Emphasis add- In ed.) proceedings upon appeal.” direct Since, the realm of criminal law a judgment of mailed his petition prior sentence is deemed “final” when all ave filing of the time for nues of have been exhausted or Little, petition, under Appellant’s when the time for “timely was filed” when higher court has run. v. Commonwealth proper delivered to the authorities. This Ginglardi, (Pa.Super.2000). 758 A.2d 193 premise begs question, if the PCRA Thus, by implication, Rule 316 indicates deposited was “filed” when that a stewardship counsel’s ends once the authorities, mail what is the final, judgment becomes which occurs effect of the Clerk of Courts’ failure to possible when the avenues of direct receipt docket of the same? The answer are exhausted. simple, logical seem from a stand- point, was “filed” when Conversely, 15 indicates caselaw mailed, nothing transpired that after the apply that the until there PCRA does delivery of the envelope containing judgment.” is a “final See Commonwealth se PCRA proper to the authorities Fralic, v. Pa.Super. 625 A.2d 1249 fact, can change this crucial (1993). even the Indeed, it for this that was reason failure, refusal, of the Clerk of Courts Appellant’s “first” was dis receipt prejudice, missed without pending Clerk Courts’ to docket to this court that made the failure/refusal supported by prisoners 10. This the United tice.... the lack of control of acknowledgement Court's delays over extends much further than that of normally Houston that litigant: pro prisoners typical civil have by deemed "filed” when received the clerk of delays between the no control over yet formally courts even if not "filed” filing, receipt its authorities’ notice and clerk. The Court commented "the rationale them from and their lack of freedom bars concluding receipt constitutes per- delivering the court clerk the notice to ordinary appellant in the civil case is that the 273-74, sonally.” at S.Ct. at Id. 487 U.S. delays has no control over between the court 2383-84. clerk’s formal no- Moreover, definition, docket because he checked the premature. tion are the PCRA deemed proceedings petition indicating box on proceedings collateral to the resulted by counsel. he was in conviction. while absent leave of above, if, rule, under the mailbox as noted court, counsel is attached a client Appellant’s “filed” when de- petition was through trial and direct Common- mail, posited in the of Courts’ Clerk Keys, Pa.Super. v. wealth failure is immaterial. to docket (1990), while a at- A.2d 386 Moreover, Appellant’s petition been challenge might to a collateral also tached perusal junc- given cursory even obligated the client ture, fact that Ms. was not Chiodo through subsequent appeals permit- unless but, Appellant, withdraw, logic ted to there is no basis in se, pending proceeding pro presume attorney’s that an attachment possible appearance privately retained in trial or ex- appeal proceedings direct counsel, readily apparent. been would have a proceeding tends to collateral to the forwarding of Unfortunately, all that the accord, challenge. Common- direct Appellant’s petition longer to counsel no (Pa.Su- Quail, A.2d 571 wealth likely in the case was to accom- involved Moreover, per.1999). there had been no possible plish delay ignorance entry appearance by of an other counsel oc- precisely which is what subsequent representation. to Ms. Chiodo’s any question curred. If there were Thus, despite misper- of Courts’ currently repre- Appellant was whether no ception contrary, Ms. Chiodo was counsel, prudence would seem- sented there longer ingly that the should have dictate Ms. cur- presuming basis Chiodo was docketed, not to a disinter- forwarded rently representing Appellant no other there was Consequently, ested counsel.11 appearance had entered an on no for the Clerk of Courts refuse reason default, by Ap- Appellant’s behalf. and forward the pellant clearly “unrepresented” when petition to Ms. Chiodo.12 petition pro he filed his se. 17 for our support find additional It could that argued 16 be recently case of Com- precipitated the of Courts’ failure to decision in the filed policy follow-up petition. of Since the of cases We would note this court number pro proceeds pro a is where a defendant se when files a brief se but criminal that, small, by accept through is it be stated if counsel is to the brief trial can filing, County a course of but decline review of brief if Clerk Courts' Berks of any time. counseled brief is filed at See Com- validated case it would action were in this Ellis, Pa.Super. v. acceptance monwealth routine mean that the (1990). error, Perhaps virtually A.2d the Rules of petitions is in in since previously Criminal Procedure should be amended all cases the defendant had been approach by provide for a similar the Clerk of represented by counsel. is not non- This petitions. respect sensical, Courts with to PCRA Such but would foster incredible ineffici- imprisoned enable an an amendment would throughout ency adopted the Common- if into his own hands individual take matters attorney who had wealth. Since often the act in his should his counsel not best inter- through represented the at trial or defendant ests, preventing thus a situation like the one longer engaged repre- will be here. found post-conviction proceed- sent the defendant or, ings, ineffectiveness his/her hundreds, claimed, ineligible be to further disputed It cannot be will defendant, thousands, automatically pre- are the criminal PCRA reviews initiated filing suming the last counsel is still of a under the PCRA. shown cases, pro- overwhelming majority of the defendant in the In the these forwarding of appointed subsequently an in- cess will often result and ineligible coun- dependent to a disinterested or review is conducted. If then appropriate, sup- sel. would wreak havoc with effi- counsel will often This deemed process. cient administration of the PCRA plement counseled Jerman, rejected 2000 court and ruled monwealth 762 A.2d never merits, Indeed, we must a con- on its remand for Super PA Jer 10/31/00. the merits of that PCRA sideration of remarkably man was decided similar keeping In line of petition.13 with this facts. In Jerman a mailed a subsequent petition thought, the should purporting document abe nullity bearing on and has no viewed as pe prescribed tion from analysis. the above filing, only riod for to have the reversed, subsequently Dep returned to him the fur- 19 Order remanded for relin- proceedings. ther Jurisdiction uty Court Administrator because quished. “not paperwork.” deemed the correct Jer-

man responded completing the STEVENS, J., Dissenting files a supplied allegations forms with identical Opinion. mailing again the document to the newly Courts. Clerk of J., SEVEN, dissenting: mailed PCRA was received ¶ 1 I Ma- respectfully dissent from the expiration of the filing time for court jority decision reverse a lower ultimately panel dismissed as A un- order remanded, of this Court vacated and con Initially, least, timely. very I that a PCRA cluding need not be remand the case in order deter- particular form and the date of mine how to two entitled mailing the first document was considered separate appointed counsel re- yet date. holding, panel so counsel, all for tained his own PRIVATE ignored events the docu occurring after purpose an eventual PCRA mailed, ment including example, For the lower of Courts’ failure to docket the finding should as to or not make whether returning the document and the misrepresented the Appellant his economic petitioner, document he obtained court-appointed and instead status when attorneys yet apparently had the placed focused on when the document was private attorney. funds his own to retain Although the mail. specifically terms, in the sup couched same Jerman ¶ Moreover, Appellant by own ac- ports docketing awaiting tions in of this decision receipt by the Clerk of not the Courts is retaining Court on direct and in pivotal factor determining when private counsel who did not file a PCRA “filed,” petition, have been the cause pivotal own untimeliness. factor taken get proper simply give 3 There no reason to filing office. the benefit of doubt revers- court without first ing the trial determin- ¶ Thus, light analysis, of the above or not actions ing whether own inescapable conclusion is that I would caused the eventual untimeliness. lant’s therefore remand. May indeed “filed,” and, moreover, applicable within the con- time

straints. the court’s conclusion contrary rejected. must be Since although subsequent Court’s 13. It is notable that the court retro- Clerk of spectively viewed the was not to counsel "invalid,” no order was entered from appealable event. could The trial at that time. view of the did court’s light not come until it ruled

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Castro

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jan 16, 2001

Citation: 766 A.2d 1283

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.