J-S12040-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LEROY MILTON CLARK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1657 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 7, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-46-CR-0004738-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2020

Appellant, Leroy Milton Clark, pro se, appeals from the order entered 

May 7, 2019, that dismissed his first petition filed under the Post Conviction 

Relief Act (“PCRA”)1 without a hearing. After careful review, we vacate the 

PCRA court’s order and remand this case to the PCRA court for appointment 

of new PCRA counsel and for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The facts underlying this appeal are as follows:

On December 23, 2015, [Appellant] left his home in Warrington, 

P[ennsylvania], armed with a .380 caliber handgun and a .38 

caliber handgun and drove his silver Dodge Caravan to 73-yearold Richard Duncan’s home in Willow Grove, Montgomery County 

. . . [H]e parked a block away from Duncan’s home, walked to the 

home and knocked on the door; when Duncan exited his home, 

[Appellant] shot Duncan twice, mortally wounding him. . . . 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546.
J-S12040-20

- 2 -

Abington Police stopped [Appellant] a few blocks away from . . . 

Duncan’s home, at which time he shot himself twice.

PCRA Court Opinion, dated August 20, 2019, at 1-2 (footnote and citations to 

the record omitted). One of Appellant’s self-inflicted gunshot wounds was to 

his head, resulting in brain damage. Exhibit D-2; N.T., 4/27/2017, at 104, 

107-08, 112, 116.

On April 27, 2017, Appellant pleaded guilty to murder, generally, and to

firearms not to be carried without a license and possession of weapon.

2

 The 

next day, following a degree-of-guilt bench trial, Appellant was convicted of 

murder of the first degree and murder of the third degree.

3

 Appellant was 

sentenced on July 20, 2017, to life imprisonment without parole for murder of 

the first degree

4

followed by an additional two to five years of incarceration

for firearms not to be carried without a license; he did not file a direct appeal.

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502, 6106(a)(1), and 907(b), respectively.

3 Id. § 2502(a), (c), respectively.

4 The PCRA court concluded that the sentences for murder of the first degree 

and murder of the third degree merged and therefore only sentenced 

Appellant on the count of murder of the first degree. PCRA Court Opinion, 

dated August 20, 2019, at 7 n.6. The PCRA court further noted that, to the 

extent that the guilty verdicts for murder of the first degree and murder of 

the third degree could be considered inconsistent, as the sentences for these 

convictions merged, Appellant suffered no prejudice and thus could not 

succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires a 

finding of prejudice. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Medina, 209 A.3d 

992, 1000 (Pa. Super. 2019).
J-S12040-20

- 3 -

On August 9, 2018, Appellant filed his first, pro se, PCRA petition raising 

multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including 

“abandonment of counsel[.]” PCRA Petition, 8/9/2018, at 2-3, 7.

On August 28, 2018, the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent 

Appellant and ordered PCRA counsel to file an amended petition or a “no merit” 

letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc), within 

60 of days of the date of the order. On October 30, 2018, the PCRA court 

granted PCRA counsel an extension of 60 days to file an amended petition or 

“no merit” letter.5

On January 14, 2019,

6 PCRA counsel filed a petition to withdraw and a 

“no merit” letter. The “no merit” letter did not address whether trial counsel 

had abandoned Appellant by failing to file a direct appeal.

On January 16, 2019, the PCRA court entered a notice of intent to 

dismiss all claims without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 (“Rule 907 

____________________________________________

5 No motion for a continuance appears on the certified docket or in the certified 

record.

6 Pursuant to the order of October 30, 2018, PCRA counsel’s petition to 

withdraw and “no merit” letter were due by December 31, 2018. Accordingly, 

these filings were filed late. However, the Commonwealth did not object to 

their belatedness, and the PCRA court considered their content. 

Consequently, the lateness of these filings did not impact the disposition of 

Appellant’s PCRA petition.
J-S12040-20

- 4 -

Notice”). In the Rule 907 Notice, the PCRA court also granted counsel’s motion 

to withdraw.

According to the certified docket, the PCRA court entered an order 

dismissing Appellant’s petition on February 19, 2019, but this order does not 

appear in the certified record. On March 11, 2019, Appellant filed a motion 

for reconsideration stating that he never received the Rule 907 Notice and 

requesting that the PCRA court vacate the order of February 19, 2019, and 

grant him 20 days thereafter to respond to the Rule 907 Notice. According to 

the certified record, on March 18, 2019, the PCRA court granted Appellant’s 

motion for reconsideration and vacated the order of February 19, 2019; 

however, this order also does not appear in the certified record.

After the PCRA court granted him a further extension of time to respond, 

on April 30, 2019, Appellant filed a response to the Rule 907 Notice. Although 

the response did not request to amend the PCRA petition, it did allege that 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to “file any Post-Sentence Motions, or 

Appeals regarding the issues raised” and requested that PCRA counsel “not be 

granted leave to withdraw[a]l as [Appellant’s] attorney and reexamine these 

issues.” Response to Rule 907 Notice, 4/20/2019, at 3 (not paginated).

On May 7, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition. On 

June 7, 2019, Appellant filed this timely appeal. On July 29, 2019, Appellant 

filed his statement of errors complained of on appeal, enumerating multiple 
J-S12040-20

- 5 -

reasons why his trial counsel was ineffective, including “[f]ailing to file a direct 

appeal.”7

Appellant now presents the following issue for our review:

The [PCRA c]ourt abused its discretion and created an error in law 

when, after reviewing the record denied [Appellant’]s PCRA 

Petition for Relief without a hearing. Instead, finding “There was 

no violation of the [Appellant]’s Constitutional rights.” and, 

"[Appellant] did not receive ineffective assistance..." by trial 

coun[s]el’s failure to effectuate [Appellant]’s best interest, i.e., 

Failing to file a direct appeal; No evidence of counsel’s attempt to 

secure a Plea Agreement to a lesser charge; It was not to the 

[Appellant]’s benefit to plead guilty to the same charges as 

charged (loss of important rights); etc.

Appellant’s Brief at 2.

“We review the denial of PCRA relief to decide whether the PCRA court’s 

factual determinations are supported by the record and are free of legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Medina, 209 A.3d 992, 996 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130, 150 (Pa. 2018)).

Appellant first argues that trial counsel “fail[ed] to file an appeal after 

being requested to do so.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. While acknowledging that 

“counsel is not required to advance frivolous arguments in an appeal,” 

Appellant adds that “counsel may still protect his client[’]s appella[te] rights 

via the procedure outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.CT. 

1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1961) by advising the court and requesting permission 

____________________________________________

7 The PCRA court entered its opinion on August 20, 2019.
J-S12040-20

- 6 -

to withdraw.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Wilkerson, 416 A.2d 477, 479 

(Pa. 1980)). He continues:

The [PCRA] counsel indicated he conducted an investigation 

regarding [A]ppellant’s claims. In this investigation PCRA counsel 

noted that [A]ppellant did not file a Direct Appeal. Yet, counsel 

failed to investigate this issue. i.e., Did [Appellant] ask for a Direct 

Appeal? Instead, PCRA counsel merely investigated the things 

trial counsel did, not how there was no reasonable basis for trial 

counsel to not protect his client[’]s appella[te] rights.

Id. at 13.

Before we can reach the merits of this claim, we must first determine 

whether PCRA counsel’s “no merit” letter was deficient, as it entirely failed to 

discuss this issue.8

The no-merit letter must set forth: 1) the nature and extent of 

counsel’s review of the case; 2) each issue that the petitioner 

wishes to raise on appeal; and 3) counsel’s explanation of why 

each of those issues is meritless. Commonwealth v. Pitts, 603 

Pa. 1, 981 A.2d 875, 876 n.1 (2009); Turner, 544 A.2d at 928-

29; [Commonwealth v.] Rykard, 55 A.3d [1177,] 1184 [(Pa. 

Super. 2012); Commonwealth v. Glover, 738 A.2d 460, 464 

(Pa. Super. 1999). Where PCRA counsel’s no-merit letter does 

not discuss all of the issues that the convicted defendant has 

raised in a first PCRA petition and explain why they lack merit, it 

does not satisfy these mandatory requirements and dismissal of 

the PCRA petition without requiring counsel to file an amended 

PCRA petition or a further, adequate no-merit letter is a 

deprivation of the right to counsel on the PCRA petition.

Commonwealth v. Kelsey, 206 A.3d 1135, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2019).

____________________________________________

8 “While the inadequacy of PCRA counsel’s no-merit letter is waived if not 

raised before the PCRA court and this Court,” Commonwealth v. Kelsey, 

206 A.3d 1135, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2019), Appellant challenged PCRA counsel’s 

motion to withdraw in his Response to Rule 907 Notice and has specifically 

asserted and briefed this issue in this appeal. Response to Rule 907 Notice, 

4/20/2019, at 3 (not paginated); Appellant’s Brief at 13.
J-S12040-20

- 7 -

In the current action, we recognize that the PCRA court conducted an 

independent review of this claim of ineffectiveness for failure to file a direct 

appeal, despite PCRA counsel’s failure to include this claim in his inadequate 

“no merit” letter. PCRA Court Opinion, dated August 20, 2019, at 6-7. The 

error here, however, is the denial of the assistance of counsel, not the 

sufficiency of the PCRA court’s opinion or review or even whether Appellant’s 

claims in his PCRA petition are meritorious. Even where a pro se first PCRA 

petition appears on its face to be meritless, the defendant is entitled to 

representation by counsel before that determination is made. Kelsey, 205 

A.3d at 1140 (citing Commonwealth v. Ramos, 14 A.3d 894, 895-96 (Pa. 

Super. 2011); Commonwealth v. Stout, 978 A.2d 984, 988 (Pa. Super. 

2009)).

In Kelsey, id., as in the current action, the appellant did not waive his 

right to representation by counsel, and PCRA counsel neither represented the 

appellant on the merits of the PCRA petition nor filed a sufficient “no merit” 

letter that addressed all of the appellant’s claims. This Court consequently 

vacated the dismissal of the appellant’s PCRA petition and remanded to the 

PCRA court for appointment of new PCRA counsel – which must also be our 

remedy in the current appeal. Id. We thereby instruct the PCRA court to 

appoint new PCRA counsel for Appellant within 21 days of the date that the 

certified record is returned to the PCRA court.

This Court also instructed in Kelsey:
J-S12040-20

- 8 -

On remand, Appellant’s new counsel shall be permitted to file an 

amended PCRA petition or, if counsel concludes in the exercise of 

his or her professional judgment that the issues raised in the PCRA 

proceeding are without merit, counsel may file an adequate nomerit letter that addresses all of the issues raised in Appellant’s 

PCRA petition and move to withdraw.

Id. Hence, this Court likewise orders that, upon remand, new PCRA counsel 

may either: (1) file a new amended PCRA petition raising any and all 

challenges that counsel deems appropriate; or (2) if new PCRA counsel 

concludes in his or her professional opinion that the issues raised in the PCRA 

proceeding are without merit, new PCRA counsel may file an adequate “no 

merit” letter addressing all of the issues raised in Appellant’s PCRA petition 

and move to withdraw. Id.9 While we would normally issue a schedule for 

____________________________________________

9 As we are permitting newly appointed PCRA counsel to raise any appropriate 

issue upon remand, we need not address Appellant’s remaining arguments. 

See Appellant’s Brief at 9-13.

Furthermore, albeit that we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s claim of 

ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failure to file a direct appeal, we provide the 

PCRA court with the following guidance:

Since the failure to perfect a requested appeal is the functional 

equivalent of having no representation at all, see Evitts [v.

Lucey], 469 U.S. [387,] 396-97 [(1985)] (noting that the failure 

to perfect an appeal “essentially waived respondent’s opportunity 

to make a case on the merits; in this sense it is difficult to 

distinguish respondent’s situation from that of someone who had 

no counsel at all”), Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668

(1984)], on its own terms, establishes the right to relief. 

Additionally, as President Judge McEwen reasoned, since Article 

V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees a direct

appeal as of right, see Commonwealth v. Wilkerson, 490 Pa. 

296, 299, 416 A.2d 477, 479 (1980), a failure to file or perfect

such an appeal results in a denial so fundamental as to constitute 
J-S12040-20

- 9 -

the filing of the amended petition or “no merit” letter, we are reluctant to issue 

a specific timeline given the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 

Instead, we relinquish jurisdiction and direct the court and the parties to 

comply with the standard timing requirements as much as possible.

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions to appoint new PCRA 

counsel and for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

____________________________________________

prejudice per se. See generally Canales v. Roe, 151 F.3d 1226, 

1229-30 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[i]t appears that every 

federal court of appeals to address the issue has applied some 

form of a rule of presumed prejudice where counsel fails to file a 

notice of appeal”).

Thus, we hold that, where there is an unjustified failure to file a 

requested direct appeal, the conduct of counsel falls beneath the 

range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, 

denies the accused the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, 

Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well as the right to 

direct appeal under Article V, Section 9, and constitutes prejudice 

for purposes of Section 9543(a)(2)(ii). Therefore, in such 

circumstances, and where the remaining requirements of the 

PCRA are satisfied, the petitioner is not required to establish his 

innocence or demonstrate the merits of the issue or issues which 

would have been raised on appeal. . . . The remedy for the 

deprivation of this fundamental right of appeal is its restoration.

Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 571–73 (Pa. 1999) (footnotes 

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1273 (Pa. 

2007) (“failure to file a requested direct appeal . . . is the functional equivalent

of having no counsel at all”; “[i]n such instances, the deprivation requires a 

finding of prejudice” (emphasis in original)).
J-S12040-20

- 10 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2020