Com. v. Perkins, L. ( 2016 )

J-S24009-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LAHME PERKINS
Appellant No. 1038 MDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001266-2008
CP-22-CR-0001394-2008
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BOWES AND MUSMANNO, JJ
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 18, 2016
My learned colleagues hold that Lahme Perkins, who was denied PCRA
relief after a full evidentiary hearing, is now entitled to the appointment of
counsel to raise claims of collateral counsel’s effectiveness. The majority
justifies this result on the fact that Appellant experienced difficulties
procuring service of a notice of intent to dismiss issued after the hearing, to
which Appellant attempted to respond. However, since Appellant was
represented by counsel, he was not entitled to hybrid representation and the
judge was not required to act on any pro se responses to the unrequired
notice. I therefore dissent.
This case presents a variation of the often-vexing problem of how a
litigant can secure appellate review of the rule-based right to effective
assistance of collateral counsel. In Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16J-S24009-16
(Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), following clear Supreme Court precedent on this
question, we noted that claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffective assistance could
not be raised for the first time on appeal. Therein, collateral counsel filed a
petition containing eleven claims. The trial judge initially issued a
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss nine of the claims, and held a
hearing on the remaining two claims. The PCRA court then denied the
petition. The petitioner retained new counsel, who filed a notice of appeal,
raising claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness. We held those claims could
not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The only distinction between the litigant in Henkel and Appellant
herein is that the trial court issued an unnecessary notice of intent to
dismiss, which was not received by Appellant. The rule governing notices of
intent to dismiss is titled “Disposition Without Hearing” (emphasis added).
Since the trial judge held a hearing on the PCRA claims, this notice was not
required. All the judge was required to do was “issue an order denying relief
. . . as provided in Rule 114.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(D)(1). The May 6, 2015
order satisfied that obligation. The question presented in this appeal is what
effect, if any, the unnecessary notice and Appellant’s attempts to respond
have on whether claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness have been
preserved.
As the post-hearing notice is significant to my analysis, I begin by
setting forth its history. Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition and was
-2-
J-S24009-16
appointed counsel who, on July 17, 2014, filed an amended petition
requesting an evidentiary hearing. On February 18, 2015, the evidentiary
hearing was held. The docket reflects that on March 23, 2015, a notice of
intent to dismiss was issued.1 On April 23, 2015, Appellant filed a motion
seeking service of that notice. The motion reads in pertinent part:
3. To date, [Appellant] has not been served with a copy of this
[c]ourt’s March 23, 2015 Rule 907 Notice, and for this reason,
has and continues to be prevented from ascertaining the basis of
this [c]ourt’s contemplated dismissal.
4. Furthermore, while it is true that [Appellant] is currently
represented by counsel, because [Appellant] believes that
present counsel has and continues to render deficient
performance in the development, presentation and litigation of
his claims for PCRA relief, it is imperative – at least as a matter
of record preservation for any potential appeal – that [Appellant]
raise any claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness in response to
this Court’s Rule 907 Notice.
Motion, 4/23/15, at 2 (citing Commonwealth v. Pitts, 961 A.2d 875, 879,
n.3 (Pa. 2010)). Notably, Appellant did not seek to represent himself or
seek leave to amend his petition.
On May 6, 2015, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. The judge
addressed the motion to compel service by separate order, which reads:
AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of
Petitioner Lahme Perkins’ Motion to Compel Service of March 23,
2015 Notice of Intent to Dismiss PCRA and Petitioner’s Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to March 23, 2015 Notice of Intent
to Dismiss PCRA, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s
____________________________________________
1
This document does not appear in the certified record.
-3-
J-S24009-16
Motion is DENIED. This Court notes that Petitioner is currently
represented by Jennifer Tobias, Esquire.
Petitioners filing for relief under the PCRA are not entitled to
hybrid representation and trial courts are not required to
consider pro se filings from petitioners that are represented by
counsel. See Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa.
2011); Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009);
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993).
Order, 5/6/15. On May 14, 2015, Attorney Tobias filed a petition to
withdraw, citing correspondence from petitioner and his desire to file
ineffectiveness claims against her. Petition to withdraw, 5/14/15, at 3. The
trial court granted this request on June 4, 2015, and, on June 15, 2015,
ordered Appellant to file a concise statement. Appellant complied and is
therefore representing himself pro se in these matters. The majority holds
that Appellant preserved claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness through his
responses to the notice of intent to dismiss. I disagree, since Appellant was
still represented by counsel, did not seek to represent himself, and
appointed counsel did not indicate that she wished to withdraw.
The majority does not analyze the refusal to entertain the pro se
motions filed before entry of the order denying relief. I believe the trial
judge correctly denied the motion, and, as a result, Appellant’s claims have
not been preserved. A review of Jette, supra, demonstrates that Appellant
did not preserve for appeal any claim of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness. In
Jette, appointed collateral counsel filed an amended petition, which was
dismissed following an evidentiary hearing. Counsel then filed an appeal and
-4-
J-S24009-16
a brief addressing one issue. Jette then submitted his own pro se brief
raising additional issues. This Court forwarded the pro se brief to counsel
and requested a response pursuant to a procedure we outlined in
Commonwealth v. Battle, 879 A.2d 266 (Pa.Super. 2005). Battle
required appointed counsel to review the pro se filings; if the brief alleged
ineffectiveness of appellate counsel the attorney was required to petition for
remand and discuss the merits of any pro se ineffectiveness claims. We
then determined, on the basis of counsel’s analysis, whether remand was
warranted. Jette, supra at 1036, n.5 (describing Battle). Jette’s appellate
counsel complied, and prepared a motion to remand for the appointment of
new counsel. We ultimately found that Jette was entitled to new counsel
and remanded for that purpose. Id. at 1036.
The Commonwealth appealed. Our Supreme Court reversed and
abrogated Battle, stating that the procedure “as applied to address pro se
claims of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness, while that counsel is still
representing the appellant, is in contravention of this Court’s long-standing
policy that precludes hybrid representation.” Id.
In my view, Jette controls the outcome. This case poses a clear
hybrid representation problem, regardless of whether Appellant is seeking to
either add a supplemental claim to the PCRA petition (i.e., a claim for PCRA
relief not based on PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness) or present an entirely
new claim predicated on PCRA counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. In either
-5-
J-S24009-16
situation, requiring the trial court to accept the pro se filings effectively gives
Appellant a veto power over the contents of the PCRA petition and a new
chance to represent himself. Appellant’s counsel attempted to secure PCRA
relief, and if Appellant was dissatisfied with her efforts he could have sought
to represent himself or retain new counsel. Absent such a request, the trial
court could not act on any pro se documents.
My colleagues do not discuss Jette. Instead, the majority determines
that “Perkins reserved his claim of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness by raising
them in his pro se response to the PCRA court’s Notice of intent to dismiss.”
Majority opinion at 3 (citing Pitts, supra, at 880, n.4). The majority has
therefore attached dispositive significance to the pro se response, and,
concomitantly, this represents a finding that the trial court committed legal
error in refusing to act on the response.
Thus, this case can be reduced to a question of whether Pitts
requires a trial court to accept hybrid filings when those filings challenge
PCRA counsel’s effectiveness. I do not think that Pitts dictates that result.
Pitts concerns the preservation of claims when appointed counsel files a
Turner/Finley2 no-merit letter. In Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d
1177 (Pa.Super. 2012), we analyzed Pitts in deciding whether the appellant
therein properly preserved claims of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel
____________________________________________
2
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
-6-
J-S24009-16
who had filed a Turner/Finley no-merit letter. Id. at 1186. We
determined that a response to the notice of intent to dismiss did not
constitute a second or subsequent petition, as any pro se response is more
properly viewed as an objection to the proposed withdrawal.
Obviously, there is a significant distinction between cases where
appointed counsel seeks to withdraw under Turner/Finley and cases where
appointed counsel litigates some set of claims. In the former situation,
counsel is representing that there exists no meritorious issue at all, and the
no-merit letter represents a clear break in the attorney-client relationship.
As we stated in Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa.Super. 2012):
When counsel files a Turner/Finley no-merit letter and counsel
has not yet been permitted to withdraw, the rule against hybrid
representation is inapplicable, as the petitioner can file a pro se
response. Ordinarily, as occurred in Pitts, attorneys are
permitted to withdraw by the final order dismissing the petition,
not when the notice of intent to dismiss is filed. Hence, at the
time the petitioner responds, he would ostensibly be represented
by counsel.
Id. at 1198, n.4. However, in the latter situation, counsel has exercised
professional judgment in choosing which claims to present and how to
present them. We observed in Rykard that the purpose of a Rule 907
notice is
to allow a petitioner an opportunity to seek leave to amend his
petition and correct any material defects, see Commonwealth
v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517, 526 (2001), the
ultimate goal being to permit merits review by the PCRA
court of potentially arguable claims. The response is an
opportunity for a petitioner and/or his counsel to object to the
dismissal and alert the PCRA court of a perceived error,
-7-
J-S24009-16
permitting the court to “discern the potential for amendment.”
Id. at 527. The response is not itself a petition and the law still
requires leave of court to submit an amended petition. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(A).
Rykard, supra at 1189 (emphasis added). Since Attorney Tobias did not
seek to withdraw and the PCRA court proceeded to merits review, Jette, not
Pitts, applies.
Thus, the majority’s result not only sweeps aside the Supreme Court’s
hybrid representation principles, it also revives Battle, albeit restricting its
application to the PCRA court level. If that is not the case, how did the PCRA
court err in refusing to act on the pro se motion?3 From the majority’s
perspective, the court was not only obligated to permit hybrid
representation, it was further required to do precisely what Jette
disapproved: act as a referee in a dispute between the pro se litigant and
PCRA counsel. I read Jette to establish a categorical bar on judicial
interference between appointed counsel and the petitioners they represent.
Whether that interference occurs at the appellate level, as in Jette, or at the
PCRA court level, as is the case herein, is irrelevant. Absent Petitioner
seeking to represent himself, the PCRA court could not remove Attorney
Tobias. “[T]his case amply reveals the tension the procedure interposes
between client and counsel and the inappropriate role the appellate court
____________________________________________
3
The majority does not elaborate on what the PCRA court should have done
in response to Appellant’s pro se filings.
-8-
J-S24009-16
then plays in refereeing the court-created ‘battle.’” Jette, supra at 1040.
The problems inherent in the Battle procedure are not ameliorated by
substituting our courts of common pleas for this Court in the role of referee.
Nothing prevented Petitioner from seeking to represent himself before the
unnecessary Rule 907 notice was issued. Tellingly, it was only upon learning
that the court intended to dismiss the petition after an evidentiary hearing
that Petitioner asserted PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness.
To that end, I believe the majority’s ruling creates even more
confusion by vacating the order denying relief. Appellant will be, in effect,
filing his first PCRA petition.4 However, the entire point of the majority’s
disposition is to permit Appellant to raise claims of collateral counsel
ineffectiveness. Yet, raising such a claim will be a procedural impossibility
given that there is no longer an order denying relief. Any claim of PCRA
counsel ineffectiveness must be raised as a layered claim challenging
collateral counsel’s representation.5
____________________________________________
4
Clearly, the forthcoming petition cannot be deemed a second or
subsequent petition: If so, the petition would be time-barred. Thus,
Appellant is entitled to counsel. Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C).
5
The impossibility of raising a layered ineffectiveness claim is demonstrated
by the fact that there is no decision on the merits of the claims collateral
counsel litigated. How can Appellant possibly satisfy the prejudice prong?
Had we granted relief on the merits of the claims presented at the hearing,
PCRA counsel would clearly be effective. Thus, the majority has attached a
presumption of ineffectiveness to Attorney Tobias’s representation, based on
nothing more than the fact the PCRA court denied relief.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-9-
J-S24009-16
I recognize the visceral appeal in permitting Appellant to raise these
claims, since he attempted to respond to the unnecessary notice of intent to
dismiss. This action, on its surface, complies with what our precedents have
said. See Henkel, supra at 25-26 (“In two separate footnotes, the Pitts
majority mandated that a petitioner raise any allegations of PCRA counsel
ineffectiveness in response to the PCRA court's notice of dismissal.”). Since
we have established that a challenge to PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot
be raised on appeal, Petitioner’s filing would appear to be the only realistic
avenue to raise such claims.
However, we cannot ignore our Supreme Court’s disapproval of hybrid
representation. Nor can we ignore the reality that the trial court could have
simply dismissed the petition, and, had that occurred, Appellant would be
barred from raising these claims pursuant to Henkel. Thus, the procedural
quirk of the unnecessary notice has given this litigant an extra round of
collateral attack.
Additionally, I briefly note that in Henkel, supra, we stated that a
post-hearing notice of intent to dismiss, as occurred herein, is a possible
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Justice Baer, who filed a dissenting opinion in Pitts, opined that requiring
PCRA petitioners to raise ineffectiveness claims in response to a notice of
intent to dismiss is unworkable for precisely this reason. Accordingly,
Justice Baer would hold that the PCRA appeal stage is the “first and only
viable opportunity” to challenge collateral counsel’s representation. Pitts,
supra at 887 (Baer, J., dissenting).
- 10 -
J-S24009-16
means to enable appellate review of collateral counsel ineffectiveness
claims:
Possible non-legislative solutions to alleviate the problem could
include requiring a notice of intent to dismiss in all first-time
petition cases, even after an evidentiary hearing, or replacement
of the notice of dismissal requirement with a post-PCRA motion
practice. In this latter respect, the Supreme Court procedural
rules committee could consider requiring PCRA judges to give
reasons for dismissal when issuing a final order in all first-time
petition cases and provide a window to present PCRA counsel
ineffectiveness claims. Similar to a post-sentencing motion
following a revocation proceeding, the post-PCRA motion would
not have to toll the period for filing an appeal. However, it would
provide petitioners an opportunity to request leave to file an
amended petition alleging PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims or
otherwise raise the issue. Of course, hybrid representation
concerns might have to be set aside in cases where
counsel is not attempting to withdraw. This Court, of
course, is without authority to promulgate procedural rules.
Henkel, supra at 29, n. 4 (emphasis added). Whatever the appeal of that
approach, our Supreme Court alone has the authority to create an exception
to Jette. Additionally, this case demonstrates that any amendment of our
rules as contemplated by Henkel should take into account that a post-
hearing notice of intent to dismiss, if accompanied by an explanation of
reasons for dismissal, is effectively giving litigants an advisory opinion.
Appellant’s motion seeking service of the notice explicitly stated that he was
prevented “from ascertaining the basis of this [c]ourt’s contemplated
dismissal.” Motion, 4/23/15, at 2. The majority characterizes this response
as alleging ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel. Yet it is difficult to read
Appellant’s motion as anything other than an attempt to tailor an
- 11 -
J-S24009-16
ineffectiveness claim in light of the PCRA court’s opinions on why relief was
denied, i.e., PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to win. The right to
effective assistance of collateral counsel, whatever its contours, cannot
possibly go so far.
I agree, however, that the trial court improperly permitted Attorney
Tobias to withdraw. Appellant was entitled to counsel for purposes of PCRA
appeal and he should have been given the option of representing himself on
appeal—limited to the issues presented at the evidentiary hearing and ruled
upon by the trial court—or to continue with Attorney Tobias (or private
counsel of his choice).6 I would therefore remand for a Grazier7 hearing.
____________________________________________
6
Attorney Tobias sought to withdraw based on the fact that Appellant
wished to raise her ineffectiveness. I would leave it to the trial court to
determine whether there is an irreconcilable conflict. If so, the trial judge
could appoint new counsel.
7
Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
- 12 -