Com. v. Postie, F. ( 2018 )

J-E02001-18
2018 PA Super 340COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FREDERICK ANDREW POSTIE :
:
Appellant : No. 93 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered January 4, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-54-CR-0001119-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J.,
LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and
McLAUGHLIN, J.
CONCURRING OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2018
I join the Majority Opinion in full, and write separately to make two
observations. First, the Majority properly expresses no opinion on the
cognizability under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) of Appellant’s claim
that the trial court should have held a hearing on his request to proceed pro
se. Although I harbor doubt that such a claim is cognizable under the PCRA,
the Majority appropriately does not address cognizability, as neither the
Commonwealth nor the PCRA court addresses that question.
Second, an additional factor supports the Court’s decision not to vacate
and remand for the appointment of new PCRA counsel. See Majority Opinion,
slip op. at 8 n.4. After Postie initiated this appeal, but before we granted en
banc consideration, the trial court conducted a Grazier hearing and concluded
J-E02001-18
that Postie validly waived his right to counsel for this appeal. See id., slip op.
at 7.
-2-