Commonwealth v. Dougherty

18 A.3d 1095, 610 Pa. 207, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 1028

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 28, 2011
• Docket: 585 CAP
• Status: Published

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day April, 2011, after review, we find that the PCRA court’s 10-page opinion provides an insufficient basis for our review, and further find that the PCRA court erred by denying a request for her recusal. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the PCRA court for appointment of a new PCRA judge who shall prepare a fully developed opinion on all of the parties’ claims, and may hold an evidentiary hearing or grant any other relief deemed necessary.

The Commonwealth’s Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication, is granted.¹

Jurisdiction relinquished; case remanded.

Chief Justice CASTILLE, Justice EAKIN, and Mesdames TODD and ORIE MELVIN join the per curiam order. Justice BAER files a concurring statement in which Justice McCAFFERY and Madame Justice ORIE MELVIN join. Justice SAYLOR files a concurring and dissenting statement.

1 . Appellant has filed a letter indicating he does not oppose the Commonwealth’s Motion.

1 . To that end, I respectfully differ from my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Saylor, who calls for a mandatory hearing upon remand.