Com. v. Rohades, C. ( 2020 )

J-S66019-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CLARENCE ROHADES :
:
Appellant : No. 300 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 31, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0406261-2004,
CP-51-CR-0406311-2004, CP-51-CR-0406331-2004
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 27, 2020
Appellant Clarence Rohades appeals pro se from the order dismissing
his first Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, petition
without a hearing. For the reasons herein, we are constrained to again vacate
and remand for further proceedings because the PCRA court did not comply
with this Court’s prior mandate ordering findings of fact and conclusions of law
addressing Appellant’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 claim.
We state the facts as set forth in this Court’s prior remand decision:
On March 2, 2004, Appellant was arrested and charged with
offenses stemming from the robberies of several different
businesses in Philadelphia.[1] Appellant’s cases did not proceed to
____________________________________________
1 All three of the above-captioned dockets reflect the Commonwealth’s motion
to consolidate. The certified records transmitted to this Court were
incomplete, but the trial court apparently granted the Commonwealth’s
J-S66019-19
a jury trial until July 2008. Following trial, the jury convicted
Appellant of three counts of robbery, three counts of possessing
instruments of crime and one count of simple assault.
Additionally, the trial court convicted Appellant of three violations
of the Uniform Firearms Act. The trial court sentenced Appellant
to an aggregate term of 77 ½ to 155 years’ imprisonment. A
panel of this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence and our
Supreme Court denied his subsequent petition for allocatur.
On November 17, 2011, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA
petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who later filed an
amended petition. The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to
dismiss Appellant’s petition without a hearing, and ultimately
dismissed the petition.
Commonwealth v. Rohades, 2018 WL 3748675, *1 (Pa. Super. filed Aug.
8, 2018) (unpublished mem.) (Rohades I).
The Rohades I Court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing
based on the following:
Here, based upon our review of the record, we are unable to
determine whether Appellant’s Rule 600 motion would have been
meritorious. While the PCRA court concludes in its opinion that
the Rule 600 motion is baseless, it fails to undertake any analysis
of which party occasioned the repeated delays in this case. Our
independent review of the docket also fails to illuminate this issue.
For instance, the docket indicates many of the delays, but without
reference to which party requested them. Therefore, we lack the
necessary information to determine if a Rule 600 motion would
have been successful.
Id. at *2. The Rohades I Court therefore was “constrained to vacate the
PCRA court’s order and remand this case to the PCRA court to conduct an
____________________________________________
motion. The Commonwealth’s appellate brief also notes that Appellant’s cases
were consolidated for trial. Commonwealth’s Brief at 8.
-2-
J-S66019-19
evidentiary hearing.” Id. This Court specifically ordered “the PCRA court to
review the docket entries in conjunction with the evidentiary hearing to
determine whether Appellant, the Commonwealth, or the court occasioned the
repeated delays. The PCRA court shall then render the necessary findings of
fact and conclusions of law with respect to” Appellant’s Rule 600 claim. Id.
According to the record, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on
December 4, 2018. Following the hearing, Appellant’s then-PCRA counsel, J.
Matthew Wolfe, Esq., filed a motion to withdraw and a Turner/Finley2 letter
on December 10, 2018. Attorney Wolfe reasoned that after reviewing the
record, including the previously-unavailable quarter sessions file, Appellant’s
Rule 600 claim lacked merit. Turner/Finley Ltr., 12/10/18, at 2. The PCRA
court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice on December 10, 2018, which stated
that Appellant’s issues lacked merit and that Attorney Wolfe also determined
that Appellant’s issues lacked merit.
On December 31, 2018, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s PCRA
petition for lack of merit. Order, 12/31/18. The order listed all three docket
numbers and was docketed at all three cases. The order did not inform
Appellant of his right to appeal, the time period within which he had to file a
notice of appeal, or the need to file separate notices of appeal. Also, the
____________________________________________
2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
-3-
J-S66019-19
records transmitted to this Court do not include any orders granting Attorney
Wolfe’s motion to withdraw. Critically, the records do not reflect that the PCRA
court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law per the mandate of the
Rohades I Court.
On January 18, 2019, pro se Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
listing all three above-captioned docket numbers. All three dockets and
records reflect and include Appellant’s notice of appeal.3 The PCRA court did
not order Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and did not prepare a
Rule 1925(a) opinion.4
On August 7, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause as to why we
should not quash Appellant’s appeal under Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018).5 Appellant filed a pro se response stating that he did
not file additional notices of appeal because he was unaware of Walker.
____________________________________________
3As we explain below, Appellant stated that he did not file multiple notices of
appeal.
4 We note that Appellant filed a motion for transcript of, among other things,
the December 4, 2018 PCRA evidentiary hearing. Mot. for Transcripts,
2/27/19. The record transmitted to this Court did not include a transcript of
that evidentiary hearing. Upon informal inquiry with the PCRA court, we were
advised that the hearing was not transcribed.
5 In Walker, our Supreme Court held that “where one or more orders resolves
issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment,
separate notices of appeal must be filed. Failure to do so, requires the
appellate court to quash the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, ___ A.3d
___, ___, 2020 WL 3869723, *3 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (citations
omitted and formatting altered).
-4-
J-S66019-19
Appellant’s Resp. to Rule to Show Cause, 8/21/19. Appellant, however,
argued that his charges were consolidated and resulted in one trial, unlike
Walker, which involved multiple defendants. Id. This Court discharged its
rule to show cause and referred the issue to this panel.
We decline to quash because the record does not reflect that the PCRA
court advised Appellant of his right to appeal and the time limits within which
he must file his notice of appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E); see generally
Commonwealth v. Larkin, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 3869710, *2 n.2,
*3 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (stating, “we may overlook the requirements
of Walker where, as here, a breakdown occurs in the court system, and a
defendant is” not informed of his appellate rights”). Cf. Commonwealth v.
Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 499 (Pa. Super. 2007) (refusing to quash because
the trial court did not comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 and notify the defendant
that “he had to file an appeal within thirty days of the imposition of sentence”).
Appellant raises one issue: “Whether the court erred by denying
Appellant’s PCRA petition alleging counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to move
for a dismissal before trial due to a Rule 600 violation; where the record
supports arguable merit for this claim.” Appellant’s Brief at 4.
We need not summarize Appellant’s argument because the PCRA court
did not comply with our explicit mandate to render findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding Appellant’s Rule 600 claim. While we
acknowledge that Attorney Wolfe filed a Turner/Finley letter asserting that
-5-
J-S66019-19
Appellant’s Rule 600 claim lacked merit, the fact remains that the Rohades I
Court had ordered the PCRA court to make findings of fact and conclusions of
law addressing the Rule 600 claim. Rohades I, 2018 WL 3748675 at *2; see
Carmen Enters., Inc. v. Murpenter, LLC, 185 A.3d 380, 389 (Pa. Super.
2018) (stating, a “trial court has an obligation to comply scrupulously,
meticulously, and completely with an order of the appellate court remanding
a case to the trial court. The trial court is required to strictly comply with the
mandate of the appellate court.” (citations omitted and formatting altered)).
We add that the PCRA evidentiary hearing was also not transcribed, which
inhibits appellate review. We are therefore, once again constrained to remand
to the PCRA court, which “shall then render the necessary findings of fact and
conclusions of law with respect to” Appellant’s Rule 600 claim. Rohades I,
2018 WL 3748675 at *2.
Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions.6 Jurisdiction
relinquished.
____________________________________________
6 Because the records do not include the orders formally granting Attorney
Wolfe’s petition to withdraw and the records do not reflect the PCRA court’s
independent review of the record, Attorney Wolfe remains counsel of record.
See Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875, 876 n.1 (Pa. 2009). We note
that the appeal inventories transmitted to this Court state that counsel was
granted leave to withdraw. We also order the PCRA court to transcribe the
December 4, 2018 PCRA evidentiary hearing.
-6-
J-S66019-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/27/2020
-7-