Com. v. Sanchez-Class, J.
This text of Com. v. Sanchez-Class, J. (Com. v. Sanchez-Class, J.) 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. S10041/20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : JEREMIAS SANCHEZ-CLASS, : No. 1277 MDA 2019 : Appellant :
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 9, 2019, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No. CP-40-CR-0000577-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 16, 2020
Jeremias Sanchez-Class appeals from the July 9, 2019 order entered by
the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County denying, without a hearing, his
first petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. PCRA counsel has also filed a petition to
withdraw. After careful review, we vacate the PCRA court’s order, deny PCRA
counsel’s petition to withdraw, and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant pleaded guilty to one count each of burglary and theft by
unlawful taking1 on September 19, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the trial
court sentenced appellant to 18-36 months’ imprisonment. Appellant did not
file any post-sentence motions, nor did he seek a direct appeal with this court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(2) and 3921(a), respectively. J. S10041/20
On February 17, 2017 and May 18, 2017, appellant filed pro se petitions
for credit for time served pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760. No action was
taken on these petitions. On May 16, 2019, appellant filed a pro se PCRA
petition.2 The PCRA court entered a notice of intention to dismiss appellant’s
PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 on June 12,
2019, to which appellant did not file a response. On July 9, 2019, the PCRA
court dismissed appellant’s petition without a hearing. Appellant filed a timely
pro se notice of appeal on July 30, 2019. The PCRA court did not order
appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On September 25, 2019, the PCRA court filed
an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
On October 1, 2019, we entered a per curiam order directing the PCRA
court to determine whether appellant was eligible to have appellate counsel
appointed. Following a hearing on October 25, 2019, the PCRA court
appointed Matthew P. Kelly, Esq., to represent appellant. On December 12,
2019, Attorney Kelly filed a “no-merit Turner/Finley brief”3 and a petition to
withdraw as counsel.4
2 Appellant’s pro se PCRA petition does not address any credit for time served issues.
3 The Commonwealth did not submit a brief in this matter.
4 We note that Attorney Kelly’s no-merit brief complies with the directives of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). On collateral review, the appropriate filing is a no-merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d
-2- J. S10041/20
On January 7, 2020, we entered a per curiam order noting that while
Attorney Kelly complied with the procedural requirements of Turner and
Finley, he failed to attach a letter advising appellant of his right to
immediately proceed pro se or with a private attorney pursuant to Widgins,
29 A.3d at 818 (applying Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 614
(Pa.Super. 2006), abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Pitts,
981 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2009)). Our order directed Attorney Kelly to notify
appellant of his rights and file a copy of the notification with this court.
Attorney Kelly complied with our order, filing a copy of the letter he sent to
appellant notifying him of his rights on January 10, 2020. Appellant has not
filed a response.
The PCRA requires that any petition for collateral relief be filed within
one year of the date that the judgment of sentence becomes final.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1). “[A] judgment becomes final at the conclusion of
direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of
time for seeking the review.” Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118,
122 (Pa.Super. 2014), quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3).
927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). Because an Anders brief provides more protection to a defendant, we will accept Attorney Kelly’s brief in lieu of a no-merit letter. Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816, 817 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2011), citing Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109, 1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 882 A.2d 477 (Pa. 2005).
-3- J. S10041/20
Here, appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on January 1,
2017, following the conclusion of the period in which appellant could have filed
a notice of appeal for direct appellate review by this court. See
Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Appellant filed the instant PCRA petition on May 16, 2019—
over two years after his judgment of sentence became final and over one year
after a PCRA petition could be considered timely. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9545(b)(1). Accordingly, appellant’s petition is facially untimely.
Before we can determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider the
merits of appellant’s appeal, we must first determine whether appellant was
properly afforded counsel pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal
Procedure 904. Rule 904 requires the PCRA court to appoint counsel to
represent a petitioner who is unable to afford or otherwise procure counsel for
his first petition for PCRA relief. Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C).
In the context of appointing counsel for a petitioner’s first PCRA petition,
it is of no import that appellant’s petition was untimely. Indeed, our supreme
court held that, “an indigent petitioner, who files his first PCRA petition, is
entitled to have counsel appointed to represent him during the determination
of whether any of the exceptions to the one-year time limitation apply.”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 818 A.2d 494, 499 (Pa. 2003). The Smith court
noted its agreement with this court’s holding in Commonwealth v.
Ferguson, 722 A.2d 177, 178 (Pa.Super. 1998), which stated that the PCRA
time-bar enumerated in Section 9545 “must yield” to the rule-based right to
-4- J. S10041/20
counsel for first-time PCRA petitioners under Rule 904. Smith, 818 A.2d
at 500, citing Ferguson, 722 A.2d at 178.
Here, the record reflects that the PCRA court did not appoint counsel to
represent appellant at the time appellant filed the May 16, 2019 petition.
Further, the record does not reflect that appellant ever waived his right to
counsel.
Accordingly, we vacate the PCRA court’s order dismissing appellant’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Sanchez-Class, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-sanchez-class-j-pasuperct-2020.