Com. v. Postie, F.

Opinion

J-E02001-18 2018 PA Super 340

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

:

FREDERICK ANDREW POSTIE :

:

Appellant : No. 93 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 4, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001119-2012

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

CONCURRING OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2018 I join the Majority Opinion in full, and write separately to make two observations. First, the Majority properly expresses no opinion on the cognizability under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) of Appellant’s claim that the trial court should have held a hearing on his request to proceed pro se. Although I harbor doubt that such a claim is cognizable under the PCRA, the Majority appropriately does not address cognizability, as neither the Commonwealth nor the PCRA court addresses that question.

Second, an additional factor supports the Court’s decision not to vacate and remand for the appointment of new PCRA counsel. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 8 n.4. After Postie initiated this appeal, but before we granted en banc consideration, the trial court conducted a Grazier hearing and concluded

J-E02001-18

that Postie validly waived his right to counsel for this appeal. See id., slip op. at 7.