Com. v. Barry, A. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S65025-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                                    :
    :
    :
    AMADU BARRY                                    :
    :
    Appellant                     :   No. 798 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 8, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001096-2014
    BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.:                             FILED JANUARY 11, 2018
    Amadu Barry appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed February
    8, 2017, in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, upon the revocation
    of his parole. The trial court sentenced Barry to a term of 12 months and 29
    days’ imprisonment, the balance of his sentence previously imposed on
    September 10, 2014, following his guilty plea to four counts of access device
    fraud.1 Contemporaneous with this appeal, Barry’s counsel has filed a petition
    to withdraw from representation and an Anders brief.             See Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 
    434 A.2d 1185
     (Pa. 1981). For the reasons below, we vacate Barry’s parole revocation
    sentence, deny counsel’s petition to withdraw, and remand for further
    proceedings.
    ____________________________________________
    1   See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4106(a)(3).
    J-S65025-17
    The relevant factual and procedural history underlying this appeal are
    aptly summarized in the trial court opinion, and we need not reiterate them
    herein.    See Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/2017, at 1-3.             Pertinent to our
    disposition, however, we note that Barry appeared, pro se, via telephone, for
    his February 8, 2017, revocation hearing and sentencing.
    Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 708 provides that a trial court
    may not revoke a defendant’s parole, unless there has been: “(1) a hearing
    held as speedily as possible at which the defendant is present and
    represented by counsel; and (2) a finding of record that the defendant
    violated a condition of … parole.”             Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(B)(1)-(2) (emphasis
    supplied). Our review of the record reveals Barry was unrepresented at his
    revocation hearing, and there is no indication in the record that Barry
    requested to proceed pro se or waived his right to counsel. See, generally,
    N.T., 2/8/2017, at 1-10.
    In fact, after Barry filed a pro se notice of appeal, this Court issued a
    per curium order, directing the trial court to conduct a Grazier2 hearing to
    determine if Barry wanted to proceed pro se. See Order, 4/24/2017. The
    order specifically noted it appeared from the docket that Barry was
    unrepresented at his revocation hearing. See id. Thereafter, the trial court
    complied with our directive, and following a Grazier hearing, appointed
    ____________________________________________
    2   See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 
    713 A.2d 81
     (Pa. 1998).
    -2-
    J-S65025-17
    present counsel to represent Barry on appeal. Counsel then filed an Anders
    brief and petition to withdraw.
    Our review of the record reveals that although counsel substantially
    complied with the requirements of Anders and its progeny,3 we are,
    nevertheless, constrained to deny counsel’s petition to withdraw because
    Barry’s appeal is not wholly frivolous. See Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 
    149 A.3d 881
    , 889 (Pa. Super. 2016) (denying counsel’s petition to withdraw when
    “independent review of the record reveals a potentially non-frivolous issue not
    raised by counsel”).       Barry was entitled to the assistance of counsel to
    represent him at the February 8, 2017, revocation hearing.        Pa.R.Crim.P.
    708(B)(1). Neither the trial court, nor newly appointed counsel, address this
    claim on appeal. Accordingly, we are compelled to vacate the judgment of
    sentence imposed on February 8, 2017, deny counsel’s petition to withdraw,
    and remand for further proceedings.
    Judgment of sentence vacated. Petition to withdraw as counsel denied.
    Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    ____________________________________________
    3 See Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 
    83 A.3d 1030
    , 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013)
    (en banc).
    -3-
    J-S65025-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 1/11/18
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 798 EDA 2017

Filed Date: 1/11/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024