J-A26036-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : EDWARD CHARLES JONES : : Appellant : No. 26 WDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered October 29, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000250-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: October 17, 2025
Appellant, Edward Charles Jones, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his pro se
“Petition To Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.” For the following reasons, we vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
June 2, 2023, Appellant pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol or
a controlled substance.1 The court sentenced Appellant that day to a period
of five years’ probation, with the first 135 days to be served on electronic
home monitoring. At the time of Appellant’s guilty plea and prior thereto, he
was represented by the Public Defender’s Office. Appellant did not file post-
sentence motions or a direct appeal.
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1). J-A26036-25
On August 13, 2024, Attorney James R. Jeffries entered an appearance
on Appellant’s behalf as privately retained counsel. On September 25, 2024,
Appellant submitted a pro se “Petition To Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.”2 In it,
Appellant claimed that he gave his attorney money to request a hearing
(presumably, an appeal from the judgment of sentence), but that the attorney
failed to file the paperwork. By motion dated September 25, 2024, Attorney
Jeffries sought to withdraw. By order dated September 27, 2024 and filed on
October 1, 2024, the court permitted Attorney Jeffries to withdraw. 3 On
October 29, 2024, the court denied Appellant’s pro se petition for nunc pro
tunc relief. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 30, 2024,
consisting of various pages challenging, inter alia, the validity of his guilty plea
and alleging plea counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a requested direct
appeal. The court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement per
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant did not file one.
Preliminarily, the Commonwealth suggests that we quash the current
2 This petition is not filed on the docket, but it is contained in the certified record. The petition also contains a timestamp, but the timestamp is illegible.
3 The record also contains a document titled “RELEASE” dated August 19, 2024, in which Appellant signed an acknowledgment that the Jeffries Firm was no longer representing him and confirming that the firm had refunded Appellant’s retainer.
We further note that Attorney Jeffries’ motion to withdraw is not docketed but is timestamped as filed on October 1, 2024. Nevertheless, the court must have received the filing prior thereto because the court’s order granting Attorney Jeffries’ motion is dated September 27, 2024.
-2- J-A26036-25
appeal as untimely, as Appellant filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days
after the court denied relief.4 We observe that a notice of appeal must be filed
within 30 days of entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P.
903(a). The timeliness of a notice of appeal implicates this Court’s
jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Wooden, 215 A.3d 997 (Pa.Super. 2019).
Nevertheless, we also observe that hybrid representation is not
permitted; our courts will not accept a pro se motion while an appellant is
represented by counsel, and such motions have no legal effect and constitute
legal nullities. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 228 A.3d 577 (Pa.Super. 2020).
Consequently, in any case in which a defendant is represented by an attorney
and submits a document for filing, the clerk of courts shall accept it for filing,
time stamp it, make a docket entry reflecting the date of receipt, and place
the document in the criminal case file; a copy of the time stamped document
shall be forwarded to the defendant’s attorney and the attorney for the
Commonwealth within 10 days of receipt. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4). The
failure of the clerk of courts to do so constitutes a breakdown in the operations
of the court. See id. See also Commonwealth v. Chestnut, No. 2943 EDA
2018 (Pa.Super. filed Oct. 22, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) (explaining
that any failure of clerk of courts to forward copy of appellant’s pro se filings
4 Although one of the pages attached to the notice of appeal is dated November 10, 2024 (within 30 days of the order denying nunc pro tunc relief), there is no indication that Appellant is incarcerated such that he would enjoy the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule.
-3- J-A26036-25
to counsel of record should be deemed breakdown in court system).5
Instantly, the Commonwealth is correct that Appellant filed his pro se
notice of appeal on December 30, 2024, more than 30 days after the court
denied nunc pro tunc relief on October 29, 2024, such that the appeal appears
to be facially untimely. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Nevertheless, the record
indicates that Appellant was still represented by Attorney Jeffries at the time
he submitted the instant petition seeking nunc pro tunc relief.6 Notably,
nothing in the record indicates that the clerk of courts forwarded Appellant’s
pro se petition to Attorney Jeffries. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4). Because
Appellant was still represented by counsel at this time, his pro se petition is
considered a legal nullity. See Hopkins, supra. Consequently, the court’s
order denying Appellant’s petition would also constitute a legal nullity. See
Commonwealth v. Gooden, No. 2213 EDA 2021 (Pa.Super. filed Feb. 2,
2023) (unpublished memorandum) (noting that if filing that initiated
reinstatement of appellant’s collateral appeal rights was nullity, then order
granting reinstatement would likewise constitute nullity because court lacked
any authority to consider it). See also Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664
5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions filed in
this Court after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).
6 Although Appellant had signed an acknowledgment that Attorney Jeffries was no longer representing him prior to submitting the September 25, 2024 petition, the court did not grant Attorney Jeffries’ petition to withdraw until October 1, 2024, which post-dated Appellant’s petition.
-4- J-A26036-25
A.2d 133 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 622, 675 A.2d 1242
(1996) (stating breakdown in operations of court can excuse untimely filing of
notice of appeal).
We further recognize that “the PCRA is intended to be the sole means
of achieving post-conviction [collateral] relief.” Commonwealth v. Taylor,
65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa.Super. 2013). Thus, “so long as a pleading falls within
the ambit of the PCRA, the court should treat any pleading filed after the
judgment of sentence is final as a PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v.
Torres, 223 A.3d 715, 716 (Pa.Super. 2019).
Here, Appellant’s pro se petition seeking nunc pro tunc relief appears to
allege ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a direct
appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A26036-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : EDWARD CHARLES JONES : : Appellant : No. 26 WDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered October 29, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000250-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: October 17, 2025
Appellant, Edward Charles Jones, appeals pro se from the order entered
in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his pro se
“Petition To Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.” For the following reasons, we vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
June 2, 2023, Appellant pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol or
a controlled substance.1 The court sentenced Appellant that day to a period
of five years’ probation, with the first 135 days to be served on electronic
home monitoring. At the time of Appellant’s guilty plea and prior thereto, he
was represented by the Public Defender’s Office. Appellant did not file post-
sentence motions or a direct appeal.
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1). J-A26036-25
On August 13, 2024, Attorney James R. Jeffries entered an appearance
on Appellant’s behalf as privately retained counsel. On September 25, 2024,
Appellant submitted a pro se “Petition To Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.”2 In it,
Appellant claimed that he gave his attorney money to request a hearing
(presumably, an appeal from the judgment of sentence), but that the attorney
failed to file the paperwork. By motion dated September 25, 2024, Attorney
Jeffries sought to withdraw. By order dated September 27, 2024 and filed on
October 1, 2024, the court permitted Attorney Jeffries to withdraw. 3 On
October 29, 2024, the court denied Appellant’s pro se petition for nunc pro
tunc relief. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 30, 2024,
consisting of various pages challenging, inter alia, the validity of his guilty plea
and alleging plea counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a requested direct
appeal. The court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement per
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant did not file one.
Preliminarily, the Commonwealth suggests that we quash the current
2 This petition is not filed on the docket, but it is contained in the certified record. The petition also contains a timestamp, but the timestamp is illegible.
3 The record also contains a document titled “RELEASE” dated August 19, 2024, in which Appellant signed an acknowledgment that the Jeffries Firm was no longer representing him and confirming that the firm had refunded Appellant’s retainer.
We further note that Attorney Jeffries’ motion to withdraw is not docketed but is timestamped as filed on October 1, 2024. Nevertheless, the court must have received the filing prior thereto because the court’s order granting Attorney Jeffries’ motion is dated September 27, 2024.
-2- J-A26036-25
appeal as untimely, as Appellant filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days
after the court denied relief.4 We observe that a notice of appeal must be filed
within 30 days of entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P.
903(a). The timeliness of a notice of appeal implicates this Court’s
jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Wooden, 215 A.3d 997 (Pa.Super. 2019).
Nevertheless, we also observe that hybrid representation is not
permitted; our courts will not accept a pro se motion while an appellant is
represented by counsel, and such motions have no legal effect and constitute
legal nullities. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 228 A.3d 577 (Pa.Super. 2020).
Consequently, in any case in which a defendant is represented by an attorney
and submits a document for filing, the clerk of courts shall accept it for filing,
time stamp it, make a docket entry reflecting the date of receipt, and place
the document in the criminal case file; a copy of the time stamped document
shall be forwarded to the defendant’s attorney and the attorney for the
Commonwealth within 10 days of receipt. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4). The
failure of the clerk of courts to do so constitutes a breakdown in the operations
of the court. See id. See also Commonwealth v. Chestnut, No. 2943 EDA
2018 (Pa.Super. filed Oct. 22, 2020) (unpublished memorandum) (explaining
that any failure of clerk of courts to forward copy of appellant’s pro se filings
4 Although one of the pages attached to the notice of appeal is dated November 10, 2024 (within 30 days of the order denying nunc pro tunc relief), there is no indication that Appellant is incarcerated such that he would enjoy the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule.
-3- J-A26036-25
to counsel of record should be deemed breakdown in court system).5
Instantly, the Commonwealth is correct that Appellant filed his pro se
notice of appeal on December 30, 2024, more than 30 days after the court
denied nunc pro tunc relief on October 29, 2024, such that the appeal appears
to be facially untimely. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Nevertheless, the record
indicates that Appellant was still represented by Attorney Jeffries at the time
he submitted the instant petition seeking nunc pro tunc relief.6 Notably,
nothing in the record indicates that the clerk of courts forwarded Appellant’s
pro se petition to Attorney Jeffries. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(a)(4). Because
Appellant was still represented by counsel at this time, his pro se petition is
considered a legal nullity. See Hopkins, supra. Consequently, the court’s
order denying Appellant’s petition would also constitute a legal nullity. See
Commonwealth v. Gooden, No. 2213 EDA 2021 (Pa.Super. filed Feb. 2,
2023) (unpublished memorandum) (noting that if filing that initiated
reinstatement of appellant’s collateral appeal rights was nullity, then order
granting reinstatement would likewise constitute nullity because court lacked
any authority to consider it). See also Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664
5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions filed in
this Court after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).
6 Although Appellant had signed an acknowledgment that Attorney Jeffries was no longer representing him prior to submitting the September 25, 2024 petition, the court did not grant Attorney Jeffries’ petition to withdraw until October 1, 2024, which post-dated Appellant’s petition.
-4- J-A26036-25
A.2d 133 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 622, 675 A.2d 1242
(1996) (stating breakdown in operations of court can excuse untimely filing of
notice of appeal).
We further recognize that “the PCRA is intended to be the sole means
of achieving post-conviction [collateral] relief.” Commonwealth v. Taylor,
65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa.Super. 2013). Thus, “so long as a pleading falls within
the ambit of the PCRA, the court should treat any pleading filed after the
judgment of sentence is final as a PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v.
Torres, 223 A.3d 715, 716 (Pa.Super. 2019).
Here, Appellant’s pro se petition seeking nunc pro tunc relief appears to
allege ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a direct
appeal. This claim is cognizable under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9543(a)(2)(ii). Additionally, it is unclear whether Appellant is entitled to
court-appointed counsel.7 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) (stating that when
defendant is unable to afford or otherwise procure counsel, judge shall appoint
counsel to represent defendant on first PCRA petition). See also
Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848 (Pa.Super. 2002) (explaining that
even where PCRA petition is untimely on its face, indigent petitioner is entitled
to appointment of counsel on his first PCRA petition to determine whether
7 As previously stated, although Attorney Jeffries was privately retained, the
record indicates that Appellant was represented by the Public Defender’s Office in earlier proceedings.
-5- J-A26036-25
petition is indeed untimely, and if so, whether any exception to time-bar
requirements applies). Under these circumstances, the best resolution of this
matter is to vacate and remand for the court to address Appellant’s pro se
petition for nunc pro tunc relief as a first PCRA petition and to assess
Appellant’s eligibility for appointed counsel. Accordingly, we strike the case
from the argument list and vacate and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this memorandum.
Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Case stricken
from argument list. Jurisdiction is relinquished.
10/17/2025
-6-