Commonwealth v. Celijewski
| Decision Date | 27 January 1984 |
| Citation | 324 Pa.Super. 185,471 A.2d 525 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Anthony S. CELIJEWSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Submitted Nov. 4, 1983.
Lewis J. Bott, Asst. Public Defender Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.
Joseph Giebus, Asst. Dist. Atty., Wilkes-Barre, for Commonwealth appellee.
Before ROWLEY, BECK and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
Appellant was convicted, by a jury, of murder in the first degree and arson. He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of commutation or parole on the murder charge and a consecutive term of ten to twenty years imprisonment on the charge of arson. This direct appeal followed. We affirm.
Appellant was tried on September 14-17, 1981, and found guilty of strangling his wife and setting fire to the building in which she lived. Throughout the trial, appellant conducted his own defense, repeatedly refusing to discuss the facts of the case with counsel appointed to assist him and steadfastly maintaining that he neither desired nor required representation by counsel. Approximately one week prior to trial, on September 8, 1981, the trial judge, the Honorable Arthur D. Dalessandro, thoroughly reviewed with appellant his right to be represented by an attorney and how such representation could benefit him. Judge Dalessandro concluded that appellant knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily waived his right to the representation of counsel. In accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 318, an attorney from the public defender's office was appointed as standby counsel.
At trial appellant was permitted and encouraged to confer with standby counsel. He refused. During the closing arguments, standby counsel was permitted to participate on behalf of appellant as amicus curiae. Only after trial did appellant affirmatively ask the public defender's office to actively represent him. Standby counsel entered his appearance on behalf of appellant and filed post-trial motions. By an opinion and order dated May 19, 1982, the trial court denied appellant's post-trial motions. Appellant was sentenced on May 25, 1982. This direct appeal followed.
In his appellate brief, counsel presents seven numbered questions. These questions present the following issues:
1. Did the trial court improperly permit appellant to act as counsel on his own behalf?
2. Was appellant denied the effective assistance of counsel?
3. Did the trial court err in admitting Commonwealth's Exhibits 1 through 42, 49 and 50?
4. Did the trial court err in "objecting" to the manner in which appellant delivered his opening and closing remarks to the jury and in the manner in which appellant examined and cross-examined witnesses while failing to intercede on appellant's behalf when the Commonwealth similarly failed to follow proper trial procedure?
5. Did the trial court err in denying standby counsel's motion for a mistrial?
None of these issues entitle appellant to relief.
Appellant's first argument is without merit. The record is replete with the extensive efforts by the court to suggest, advise and recommend that appellant accept the services of the attorney provided for him. The court fully informed appellant of the many pitfalls of proceeding without counsel, from voir dire to closing argument, stressing that counsel was far better prepared to eliminate bias and prejudice from the proceedings than was appellant. Moreover, at every critical stage through which the trial progressed, the court informed appellant that he could or should confer with counsel to gain some better understanding as to what was happening and how he could better conduct his defense. Despite all of the repeated warnings and advice, at every stage of the proceedings until the jury returned its verdict, appellant refused any and all assistance. This case is controlled by Commonwealth v. Davis, 479 Pa. 274, 388 A.2d 324 (1978). In that case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:
In the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the trial judge erred in permitting [appellant] to represent himself. The record demonstrates that the judge fully advised [appellant] both of his right to be represented by counsel and of the possible disadvantages of self representation; it also clearly shows that both [appellant's] waiver of the right to counsel and his assertion of the right to self-representation were knowing and deliberate choices. Cf. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 468 Pa. 575, 364 A.2d 665 (1976). Furthermore, the public defender was made fully available to [appellant] for whatever consultation and aid [appellant] might request. Hence, in these circumstances, it would have been constitutional error for the judge to have refused [appellant] his right to represent himself. Faretta v. California, [422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1976) ].
Id., 479 Pa. at 283, 388 A.2d at 328 (emphasis added).
Counsel for appellant argues, however, that both before and during the trial appellant was manifestly incapable of adequately defending himself. This argument is, essentially, that the quality of appellant's self-representation was not as good as representation by counsel would have been and that, therefore, the court should have required the active participation of counsel during the trial. However, the United States Supreme Court in Faretta v. California, supra, made the defendant's legal acumen in such circumstances "irrelevant" for the purposes of determining whether or not appellant properly exercised his right to conduct his own courtroom defense.
We need make no assessment of how well or how poorly Faretta had mastered the intricacies of the hearsay rule and the California Code provisions that govern challenges of potential jurors on voir dire. For his technical legal knowledge, as such, was not relevant to an assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself.
422 U.S. at 836, 95 S.Ct. at 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d at 582 (emphasis supplied; footnote omitted).
Therefore the quality of appellant's legal performance is immaterial to a determination of whether or not appellant properly invoked and the trial court properly recognized appellant's invocation of his right to conduct his own defense. In accordance with Commonwealth v. Davis, supra, we have determined that "it would have been constitutional error for the trial judge to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial