Com. v. Crosby, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 26, 2022
• Docket: 1258 MDA 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-S10028-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JULIAN VINCENT CROSBY : : Appellant : No. 1258 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 30, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-18-CR-0000030-2018

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 26, 2022

Julian Vincent Crosby appeals from the order denying his petition filed

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

Crosby also filed a pro se “Motion to Proceed Pro Se, pursuant to Pa. Const.

Art. A § 9.” In the motion, he requests to proceed pro se or with new appointed

counsel and seeks an opportunity to raise claims that his PCRA counsel was

ineffective, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021). We vacate the order

and remand for further proceedings.

Crosby is represented on appeal by the same counsel that represented

him before the PCRA Court. In his motion, he seeks to proceed pro se or with

new counsel and he lists the ineffectiveness claim he wishes to raise regarding

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S10028-22

PCRA counsel. Crosby seeks the right to proceed pro se or with new counsel,

and this is his first opportunity to raise claims that his PCRA counsel was

ineffective. He lists the issues in his motion, and their resolution is not clear

from the record. We therefore will remand to the PCRA court for further

proceedings. See Bradley, 261 A.3d at 401-02 (finding PCRA petition may

raise PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims at the first opportunity to do so,

even if on appeal, and finding that an “appellate court may need to remand

to the PCRA court for further development of the record and for the PCRA

court to consider such claims as an initial matter”).

On remand, the PCRA court should hold a hearing pursuant

Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), to determine whether

Crosby should be permitted to proceed pro se or whether new counsel should

be appointed. We further direct the PCRA court to allow further development

of the claims that PCRA counsel was ineffective, either by Crosby pro se or

through newly appointed counsel, and to dispose of such claims in the first

instance.

-2- J-S10028-22

Order vacated. Motion to proceed pro se denied as moot. Case

remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/26/2022

-3-