Court Opinion

ID: 9399965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 20:09:51.396239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.191630
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                MIDDLE DISTRICT

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                   :   No. 545 MAL 2022
                                                 :
                      Respondent                 :
                                                 :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                 :   from the Unpublished Order of the
               v.                                :   Superior Court at No. 386 MDA
                                                 :   2020 entered on September 9,
                                                 :   2020, dismissing the Judgment of
 JAMES KEVIN SHATZER,                            :   Sentence of the Franklin/Fulton
                                                 :   County Court of Common Pleas at
                      Petitioner                 :   No. CP-28-CR-0002303-2017
                                                 :   entered on October 22, 2020

                                         ORDER

PER CURIAM                                                      DECIDED: June 6, 2023
       AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2023, given the Superior Court’s dismissal of

Petitioner’s appeal due to former counsel’s failure to file an appellate brief, the Petition

for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and

the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court to establish a briefing schedule premised

upon the Rule 1925(b) statement filed by Petitioner on March 23, 2020.                   Cf.

Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 577 (Pa. 2013) (allowing for consideration of an

ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal where it is “both meritorious and apparent from the

record so that immediate consideration and relief is warranted”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3)

(allowing an appellate court to remand for the appointment of new counsel and the filing

of a Rule 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc where it is clear that appellate counsel was

per se ineffective in not filing the statement); Pa.R.A.P. 1113(d) (allowing a criminal

defendant to file an application for nunc pro tunc relief, rather than proceed via the Post-

Conviction Relief Act, where the defendant directed counsel to file a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal, but counsel did not timely do so). The issues in Petitioner’s Superior Court

brief shall be limited to those identified in his Rule 1925(b) statement, as well any other

non-waivable issues that counsel may identify.

       Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                    [545 MAL 2022] - 2