Com. v. Campbell, S. ( 2020 )

J-S16011-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SAMMIE CAMPBELL :
:
Appellant : No. 1148 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0009469-2008
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2020
Appellant, Sammie Campbell, appeals from the March 29, 2019 Order
dismissing as meritless his first Petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief
Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Because Appellant filed a pro se
Motion for Grazier Hearing but the PCRA court failed to hold a such a hearing
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), and
Pa.R.Crim.P. 121, we vacate the Order and remand this case to the PCRA court
for a Grazier hearing.
The underlying facts are irrelevant to our disposition of this appeal. We
note briefly that on January 15, 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty
plea to Third-Degree Murder and Aggravated Assault for a 2007 shooting in
Philadelphia that left one victim dead and another wounded in the stomach
and leg. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced
Appellant to twelve and one-half to twenty-five years’ incarceration. Appellant
J-S16011-20
did not file a post-sentence motion or an appeal from his Judgment of
Sentence.
On June 11, 2018, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his
first. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who entered his appearance on
December 10, 2018. On January 17, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se Motion for
Grazier Hearing requesting to represent himself during his PCRA proceedings.
According to the PCRA court, the court did not know that Appellant had filed
the Motion, and did not hold a hearing. See PCRA Ct. Op., dated 6/21/19, at
1. On February 6, 2019, counsel filed a “no-merit” letter pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Finley, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), requesting that the
PCRA court dismiss Appellant’s pro se PCRA Petition and permit counsel to
withdraw from representation. On February 25, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se
Motion to Respond to Finley Letter, in which, inter alia, he once again
requested to proceed pro se. On March 29, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed
Appellant’s pro se PCRA Petition as meritless.
Appellant filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the
PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises numerous issues for our review, including: “The PCRA
[c]ourt abused its discretion by denying Appellant his constitutional right to
proceed [pro se] upon a timely request, and never hold a Grazier hearing
upon Appellant’s request, thus committing an abuse of discretion.” Appellant’s
Br. at 5.
-2-
J-S16011-20
We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the record
supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise free of
legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This
Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are
supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd, 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.
Super. 2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal
conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super.
2012).
It is well settled that a criminal defendant has a rule-based right to
representation of counsel when litigating a first PCRA petition, from the initial
filing of the petition through appellate proceedings. Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 970 A.2d 455, 457 (Pa. Super. 2009); Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C).
Pursuant to Grazier, “[w]hen a waiver of the right to counsel is sought at the
post-conviction and appellate stages, an on-the-record determination should
be made that the waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary one.”
Grazier, 713 A.2d at 82. See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 121. A Grazier hearing is
required even when it is clear from the record that a particular appellant
“clearly and unequivocally indicates a desire to represent himself[.]”
Robinson, 970 A.2d at 459–60. When PCRA court fails to hold a Grazier
hearing, remand is the appropriate remedy. Commonwealth v. Figueroa,
29 A.3d 1177, 1182 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Here, the PCRA court has indicated that it erred when it declined to hold
a Grazier hearing and has requested that we remand this case for the court
-3-
J-S16011-20
to conduct a hearing. See PCRA Ct. Op., dated 6/21/19, at 5. The
Commonwealth agrees. See Commonwealth Br. at 7-8.
Accordingly, because the PCRA court did not conduct a Grazier hearing
prior to denying Appellant’s PCRA petition, we vacate the PCRA court’s March
29, 2019 Order, and remand to the PCRA court for a Grazier hearing and a
subsequent ruling on Appellant’s PCRA Petition. See Grazier, 713 A.2d at
82; Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177, 1182.1
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/21/2020
____________________________________________
1 In light of our disposition, we decline to address Appellant’s remaining issues.
-4-