Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Pedro GREEN, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2009-09-18
Citations: 981 A.2d 1283
Docket Number: 
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Pedro GREEN, Respondent.
Judges: Justice SAYLOR dissents.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 981
Pages: 1283–1284

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Pedro GREEN, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Sept. 18, 2009.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the PCRA court for further proceedings pursuant to Senior Judge Col-ville's concurring and dissenting opinion. See Commonwealth v. Green, 957 A.2d 1238, 1243 (Colville, S.J., concurring and dissenting). The Superior Court inappropriately presumed respondent's counsel had no reasonable cause for not seeking reconsideration of respondent's sentence. Further, the court erred in presuming respondent was prejudiced by counsel's failure to file a post-sentence motion challenging the sentence. See Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216, 1225 (Pa.2009) (noting only three circumstances this Court has recognized counsel's conduct warranted presumption of prejudice). Upon remand, the PCRA court shall hold a hearing to determine whether respondent's trial counsel had reasonable basis not to file a post-trial motion seeking reconsideration of respondent's sentence. If counsel lacked reasonable basis, the PCRA court shall determine whether counsel's failure to file a post-sentence motion prejudiced respondent.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Justice SAYLOR dissents.