Com. v. Harris, E. ( 2019 )

J-S76013-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ERICA HARRIS,
Appellant No. 383 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 2, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0005275-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2019
Appellant, Erica Harris, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 20 to
45 years’ incarceration, imposed after she pled guilty to third-degree murder
and kidnapping. On appeal, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of
her sentence. However, before we can address her sentencing claims, we
must remand to the trial court for the reasons stated infra.
At this juncture, we need not discuss the facts and procedural history of
Appellant’s case. We only note that, during the pendency of this appeal,
Appellant filed a pro se “Application for Relief,” indicating that she desired to
terminate the representation of her counsel, Scott Alan Westcott, Esq., and
J-S76013-18
proceed pro se on appeal.1 On January 23, 2019, this Court issued a per
curiam order forwarding Appellant’s pro se application to Attorney Westcott in
accordance with Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032, 1044 (Pa. 2011)
(“[T]he proper response to any pro se pleading is to refer the pleading to
counsel and to take no further action on the pro se pleading unless counsel
forwards a motion.”).
On January 28, 2019, this Court received a letter from the trial court
indicating that Attorney Westcott’s license to practice law had been suspended
on or after January 23, 2019. Therefore, Attorney Westcott could not have
acted on Appellant’s pro se application to terminate his representation that
was forwarded to him by this Court, and Appellant currently has no legal
representation at all. While this does not necessarily impact our disposition
of her present appeal, as the parties’ briefs have already been filed, Appellant
is entitled to representation until the finality of her direct appeal. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(B)(2). Thus, we are compelled to remand this case for the
trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if new counsel should be
appointed or, if Appellant wishes to proceed pro se, that her decision to do so
is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in accordance with Commonwealth v.
Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The court must conduct this hearing, and
notify our Court of the outcome thereof, within 30 days of the filing of this
____________________________________________
1 When Appellant’s pro se application was filed on January 17, 2019, Attorney
Westcott had already filed a brief on her behalf on October 9, 2018.
Additionally, the Commonwealth had filed its brief on November 6, 2018, and
the time for Appellant’s filing a reply brief had passed.
-2-
J-S76013-18
memorandum decision. Appellant shall then have 30 days after the date of
the court’s decision regarding her representation to file with this Court a reply
brief to supplement the brief supplied by Attorney Westcott.
Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.
-3-