Com. v. Quail
| Decision Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Citation | 729 A.2d 571 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Jason L. QUAIL, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Jason L. Quail, pro se, appellant.
Stuart B. Suss, Asst. Dist. Atty., West Chester, for Com., appellee.
Before FORD ELLIOTT, ORIE MELVIN and BROSKY, JJ.
¶ 1 This is an appeal from an order denying appellant relief under the PCRA. Appellant asserts that he lost his appeal rights due to counsel's ineffectiveness, that his plea was unlawfully induced and that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to that given his co-defendant's. We remand for the provision of counsel and the filing of a counseled brief.
¶ 2 On February 19, 1997, appellant, represented by George J. D'Ambrosio, Esquire, pled guilty to a count of burglary and a count of aggravated assault. Both charges arose from a break-in of Michael Tyman's residence and subsequent assault upon him. Appellant's plea was accepted by the Honorable Leonard Sugerman who later imposed a sentence of four to twenty years imprisonment on the aggravated assault charge. No sentence was imposed on the burglary charge. A motion to reconsider was filed and denied. No appeal was filed.
¶ 3 On October 21, 1997, appellant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief under the PCRA alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary as counsel had promised him he would receive no more than three years imprisonment. William R. Noll, Esquire was appointed to represent appellant. Mr. Noll did not file an amended PCRA petition but did represent appellant at a hearing held on June 10, 1998 before the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, who assumed responsibility for the case due to the death of Judge Sugerman. After the hearing, Judge Sanchez denied appellant's petition. Appellant responded by filing the present appeal pro se and submitting a brief in his behalf. Mr. Noll never filed an appearance on appellant's behalf in this court and apparently has had no involvement in the case since the hearing of June 10, 1998.
¶ 4 As just stated, the present appeal from the denial of appellant's PCRA petition was filed by the appellant pro se. Appellant was represented by counsel in PCRA proceedings below, however, for whatever reason counsel did not file the appeal presently before us. More importantly, after appellant filed his appeal pro se counsel neither entered an appearance on appellant's behalf in this court nor was counsel granted leave to withdraw his representation.
¶ 5 The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and our caselaw make clear that an indigent petitioner is entitled to representation by counsel for a first petition filed under the PCRA. Commonwealth v. Hampton, 718 A.2d 1250 (Pa.Super.1998). This right to representation exists "throughout the post-conviction proceedings, including any appeal from disposition of the petition for post-conviction relief." Pa.R.Crim.P. 1504(d). It is equally clear that once counsel has entered an appearance on a defendant's behalf he is obligated to continue representation until the case is concluded or he is granted leave by the court to withdraw his appearance. Commonwealth v. Keys, 397 Pa.Super. 453, 580 A.2d 386 (1990).
¶ 6 Inasmuch as appellant has not been afforded counsel in the present appeal yet is entitled to representation we are obligated to remand the present case back to the PCRA court so that appellant can have the benefit of a counseled appeal. Upon remand the PCRA court may either direct appellant's PCRA counsel to resume his stewardship of appellant's appeal or new counsel may be appointed.1
¶ 7 In the future, when presented with a scenario where an indigent petitioner files a pro se appeal from a first PCRA petition, the PCRA court should take one of two actions: the PCRA court should either promptly notify counsel of record that his client has taken an appeal and that counsel remains obligated to represent him2, or the PCRA court should appoint new ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Padden
...this assertion we will therefore assume it to be true for purposes of this appeal. 5. See e.g. Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(d) and Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 571 (Pa.Super.1999). 6. Present Rule of Criminal Procedure 904, adopted April 1, 2001, was formerly numbered Pa.R.Crim.P. 7. Present Rule of......
-
Ingram v. Sauers, 1:12-cv-1900
...the court should either direct Attorney Galante to resume his representation of Ingram or appoint new counsel. [Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. Super. 1999)]. Should the former option be taken, Attorney Galante would have two options: (1) consult with Ingram and file a Rule 19......
-
Heyward v. City of Phila.
...Ct. 2009) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(c) ; Commonwealth v. White , 871 A.2d 1291, 1294–95 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) ; Commonwealth v. Quail , 729 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) ).22 ECF Doc. No. 2 at 13, ¶ 22; ECF Doc. No. 13 at 5-6.23 ECF Doc. No. 2 at 13, ¶¶ 23-26. A "Finley " letter, so na......
-
Commonwealth v. Crossley
...v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc); accord Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 1999) (noting "once counsel has entered an appearance on a defendant's behalf he is obligated to continue representation until the cas......