J

- S65019

- 19

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

v.

NATHAN WAYNE LAUVER

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 975 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered May 16, 2019 , i n the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County , Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 44

- CR

- 0000566

- 2018

.
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J. * MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2020 Nathan Wayne Lauver appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of institutional vandalism. 1 We remand for a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). The facts and procedural history are as follows: On August 15, 2018,
t he Commonwealth charged Lauver with institutional vandalism and the trial court appointed counsel to represent him. Thereafter, on December 28, 2018, Lauver filed a “Petition for Change of Appointed Counsel Due to Conflict.” The certified record contains no evidence that the trial court ruled on this petition. By order entered January 31, 2019, the case was scheduled for jury tr ial

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3307(a)(3).J

- S65019

- 19

- 2

-

beginning on March 11, 2019. That same day, Lauver’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw, based upon a breakdown in the attorney

- client relationship. The trial court held a hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw on February 19, 2019. No hearing tr anscript appears in the certified record. Rather, the record contains a “Waiver of Counsel” signed by Lauver and filed on that same date. The same day, the trial court entered an order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and appointing Lauver standby c ounsel. On February 26, 2019, Lauver filed a pro se motion for continuance of his trial date, which the Commonwealth opposed. By order entered March 7, 2019, the trial court denied Lauver’s request for a continuance. After considering pre

- trial motions f iled by Lauver, the case proceeded to a jury trial on March 20, 2019. On that date, the jury convicted Lauver of institutional vandalism. On April 1, 2019, Lauver filed a pro se “Post Verdict Motion For Judgment of Acquittal/Arrest of Judgment/New Tria l,” as well as “Motion for Bail Pending Appeal,” and a “Motion for Transcripts of Proceedings.” The next day, the trial court granted Lauver’s request for transcripts, and deferred ruling on the remaining motions until sentencing. On May 16 2019, the tria l court sentenced Lauver to a $1,000.00 fine and a 9 to 24 months term of state incarceration. The court further ruled that bail would continue pending appeal, but if Lauver failed to file an appeal, “he shall appear at the Mifflin County Correctional Fac ility on June 17, 2019, for transfer to a State Correctional Institution.” A transcript of the sentencing hearing does not appear in the certified record. The record does contain,J

- S65019

- 19

- 3

-

however, Lauver’s written acknowledgement of post

- sentence procedures, whi ch he and standby counsel signed. The re is no indication in the certified record that the trial court disposed of Lauver’s post

- verdict motion. On May 24, 2019, Lauver filed a pro se “Post Sentence Motion For Judgment of Acquittal/Arrest of Judgment/New Trial.” The trial court denied this motion o n M ay 29, 2019. This timely pro se appeal followed. Both Lauver and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Lauver now presents this Court a pro se brief that presents nine issues for our review. H owever, before we can address these claims, we must first consider a deficiency in the certified record. As noted, Lauver appears before this Court pro se . There is no indication in the certified record that Lauver ever made a knowing, intelligent waiver of his right to counsel on appeal pursuant to Grazier . Thus, we are constrained to remand this case for proceedings consistent with the following discussion. A criminal appellant has a constitutional right to counsel on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Wr ecks , 931 A .2d 717, 722 (Pa. Super. 2007 ).
Pursuant to Grazier , “[w]hen a waiver of the right to counsel is sought at . . . the appellate stages an on

- the

- record determination should be made that the waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary one.” Grazier , 713 A.2d at 82. A Grazier hearing is required before we may adjudicate an appeal even when it is clear from the record that a particular appellant “clearly and unequivocally indicates a desire to re present himself,” Commonwealth v. Robinson , 970 A.2d 455, 459

- 60 (Pa. Super. 2009) ( en banc ) , and evenJ

- S65019

- 19

- 4

-

when neither of the parties challenged the lack of a hearing. See Commonwealth v. Stossel , 17 A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2011). Here, although Lauver signed a waiver of counsel before he was
convicte d, and signed an acknowledgement of post

- sentence procedures, there is no indication in the certified record that the trial court inquired, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2) (setting forth relevant considerations for determining whether a criminal defenda nt is mak ing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to proceed pro se ), whether Lauver desired to waive his right to counsel in this direct appeal, and, if so, whether that decision was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In light of the unequivo cal authority cited above, we a re constrained to remand this case for a proper Grazier hearing, including a full consideration of the factors set forth at Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2). On remand, the trial court must hold a Grazier hearing and thereafter appoin t counsel, if necessary. Because our remand m a y change the content and character of this appeal substantially, we relinquish our jurisdiction. See Robinson , supra , Stossel , supra . Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 02/10/2020