J

- S16011

- 20

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

v.

SAMMIE CAMPBELL

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1148 EDA 2019 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 29, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0009469

- 2008

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2020 Appellant, Sammie Campbell, appeal s from the March 29, 2019 Order dismissing as meritless his first P etition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546. Because Appellant fi l e d a pro se Motion for Grazier Hearing but the PCRA court failed to hold a such a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998), and Pa.R.Crim.P. 121, we vacate the Order and remand this case to the PCRA court for a Grazier hearing. The underlying facts are irrelevant to our disposition of this appeal. We note briefly that o n January 15, 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to Third

- D egree Murder and Aggravated A ssault for a 2007 shooting in Philadelphia that left one victim de ad and another wounded in the stomach and leg. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced Appellant to twelve and one

- half to twenty

- five years’ incarc eration. AppellantJ

- S16011

- 20

- 2

-

did not file a post

- sentence motion or an appeal from his J udgment of
S entence. On June 11, 2018, Appellant filed the instant pro se PCRA Petition, his first. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who entered his appearance on December 10, 2018. On January 17, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se Motion for Grazier Hearing r equesting to represent himself during his PCRA proceedings. According to t he PCRA court , the court did not know that Appellant had filed the Motion, and did not hold a hearing. See PCRA Ct. Op., dated 6/21/19 , at
1

. On February 6, 2019, counsel filed a “ no - merit” letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Finley , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), requesting that the PCRA court dismiss Appellant’s pro se PCRA Petition and permit counsel to withdraw from representation

. On February 25, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se Motion to Respond to Finley Letter, in which, inter alia , he once again requested to proceed pro se. On March 29, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s pro se PCRA Petition as merit less. Appellant filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal. Both Appell ant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant raises numerous issues for our review, including: “The PCRA [c]ourt abused its discretion by denying Appellant his constitutional right to proceed [ pro se ] upon a timely request, and never ho ld a Grazier hearing upon Appellant’s request, thus committing an abuse of discretion.” Appellant’s
Br. at 5.J

- S16011

- 20

- 3

-

We review the denial of a PCRA petition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order is otherwise fr ee of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears , 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa. Super. 2007). We give no such d eference, however, to the court’s legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A. 3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012)

. It is well settled that a criminal defendant has a rule

- based right to representation of counsel when litigating a first PCRA p etition, from t he initial filing of the p etition through appellate proceedings. Commonwealth v. Robinson , 97 0 A.2d 455, 457 (Pa. Super. 2009) ; Pa.R.Crim.P. 904 (C)

. Pursuant to Grazier , “[w]hen a waiver of the right to counsel is sought at the post

- conviction and 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. See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 121. A Grazier hearing is required even when it is clear from the record that a particular appellant “clearly and unequivocally indicate s a desire to represent himself[.] ” Robinson , 970 A.2d at 459

– 60

. When PCRA court fails to hold a Grazier hearing, remand is the appropriate remedy. Commonwealth v. Figueroa , 29 A.3d 1177, 1182 (Pa. Super. 2011). Here, the PCRA court has indicated that it erred when it declined to hold

a Grazier hearing and has requested that we remand this case for the courtJ

- S16011

- 20

- 4

-

to conduct a hearing. See PCRA Ct. Op. , dated 6/21/19, at 5

. The Commonwealth agrees . See Commonwealth Br. at 7

- 8. Accordingly, because the PCRA court did not conduct a Grazier hearing prior to denying Appellant’s PCRA petition, we vacate the PCRA cour t’s March 29, 2019 Order , and remand to the PCRA court for a Grazier hearing and a subsequ ent ruling on Appellant’s PCRA P etition. See Grazier , 713 A.2d at 82 ; Figueroa , 29 A.3d 1177, 1182

. 1 Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 04/21/2020

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 In light of our disposition, we decline to address Appellant’s remaining issues.