Com. v. Antill, R.
This text of Com. v. Antill, R. (Com. v. Antill, R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S22024-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROCKY WILLIAM ANTILL : : Appellant : No. 1410 WDA 2023
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 27, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008977-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.: FILED: September 13, 2024
Rocky William Antill (“Antill”) appeals pro se from the order dismissing
his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We
quash the appeal as premature.
In 2017, a jury convicted Antill of rape of a child and related offenses.
The trial court sentenced Antill to 200 to 450 months in prison, followed by
ten years of probation. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and
our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on February 12, 2020. See
Commonwealth v. Antill, 220 A.3d 640 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 224 A.3d 1267 (Pa. 2020).
On January 10, 2021, Antill filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, his first.
The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw and a “no-
____________________________________________
1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S22024-24
merit” letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa.
1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en
banc). The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss
Antill’s petition without a hearing, and ultimately entered an order granting
counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissing the petition. Antill filed a timely
pro se notice of appeal. This Court determined that counsel’s “no-merit” letter
was deficient under Turner/Finley because it failed to discuss all issues that
Antill wished to raise. Consequently, this Court vacated the PCRA court’s order
granting the motion to withdraw and dismissing Antill’s PCRA petition, and
remanded the matter for the court to direct appointed counsel to comply with
the dictates of Turner/Finley. See Commonwealth v. Antill, 545 WDA
2021 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum).
Upon remand, the PCRA court appointed replacement counsel who filed
multiple requests for extensions before filing a motion to withdraw and a “no-
merit” letter pursuant to Turner/Finley. On April 3, 2023, the PCRA court
issued a Rule 907 notice to which Antill did not respond. On May 10, 2023,
the PCRA court entered an order dismissing Antill’s pro se PCRA petition.
On October 24, 2023, Antill filed a pro se motion for leave to file an
amended PCRA petition. On October 27, 2023, the PCRA court entered an
order denying the motion. On November 28, 2023, Antill filed a “Motion to
Rescind Order Dismissing PCRA and Allow Response to 907 Notice Nunc Pro
Tunc” in which he alleged that he did not receive a copy of either the April 3,
-2- J-S22024-24
2023 Rule 907 notice or the May 10, 2023 dismissal order. The following day,
on November 29, 2023, Antill filed pro se notice of appeal from the order
dismissing his petition. The PCRA court did not order Antill to file a concise
statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Nevertheless, the PCRA court
authored an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) in which it acknowledged Antill’s
claims that he did not receive a copy of either the April 3, 2023 Rule 907
notice or the May 10, 2023 dismissal order, and requested that this Court
remand the matter to permit the PCRA court to consider Antill’s motion. In
this Court, Antill has filed a pro se motion for remand, noting the PCRA court’s
request for a remand in its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Preliminarily, we must consider whether this appeal is properly before
this Court. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 114 sets forth the
obligations of the clerk of courts. Among other obligations, the clerk must
promptly serve a copy of “any order or court notice” on the party’s attorney
or “[on] the party if unrepresented.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(B)(1). Additionally,
the clerk shall promptly note on the docket the following information: (1) the
date of receipt in the clerk’s office of the court order; (2) the date appearing
on the court order; and (3) the date of service of the court order. See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2). Our Supreme Court has ruled that the clerk’s
obligations under Rule 114 are mandatory and may not be modified by local
rules. See Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249, 1253 (Pa. 2002)
(holding that an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement did not result in waiver
-3- J-S22024-24
where, inter alia, the trial court docket did not indicate the date and manner
of service of the court’s Rule 1925(b) order in violation of Rule 114).
Further, with respect to the May 10, 2023 dismissal order, Rule 907
provides:
When [a PCRA] petition is dismissed without a hearing, the judge promptly shall issue an order to that effect and shall advise the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the right to appeal from the final order disposing of the petition and of the time limits within which the appeal must be filed. The order shall be filed and served as provided in [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 114.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(4).
Finally, pursuant to our appellate rules, “no order of a court shall be
appealable until it has been entered upon the appropriate docket in the lower
court.” Pa.R.A.P. 301(a)(1).2 The thirty-day time period for appealing from
a criminal order other than a judgment of sentence begins to run on the day
that the order is served on the parties by the clerk of courts. See Pa.R.A.P.
108(a)(1), (d).
Here, our review reveals that neither the PCRA court’s April 3, 2023 Rule
907 notice, nor its May 10, 2023 order dismissing Antill’s petition have been
properly entered on the docket. Notably, in its April 3, 2023 Rule 907 notice,
the PCRA court granted replacement counsel’s motion to withdraw from
representation, thereby leaving Antill unrepresented. Thus, pursuant to Rule
114(B)(1), the clerk of courts was required to promptly serve a copy of the
2 Rule 301(a)(1) provides one exception which is not herein applicable.
-4- J-S22024-24
Rule 907 notice on Antill. Yet, the docket entry for the Rule 907 notice
contains no indication that the order was served on Antill pursuant to Rule
114(B)(1). Nor is there any notation on the docket of the date or manner in
which such service was made to Antill in accordance with Rule 114(C)(2).
Rather, the docket reflects that a copy of the Rule 907 notice was sent only
to the district attorney’s office and replacement counsel, who was withdrawn.
Similarly, the docket entry for the May 10, 2023 dismissal order contains
no indication that the order was served on Antill, who was unrepresented,
pursuant to Rule 114(B)(1), and by certified mail, return receipt requested,
as required by Rule 907(4). Moreover, there is no notation on the docket of
the date or manner in which such service of the dismissal order was made to
Antill in accordance with Rule 114(C)(2). Rather, the docket reflects that a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Antill, R., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-antill-r-pasuperct-2024.