Court Opinion

ID: 9770045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:35:32.746812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:12.175052
License: Public Domain

*208
ORDER

PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 28th day April, 2011, after review, we find that the PCRA court’s 10-page opinion provides an insufficient basis for our review, and further find that the PCRA court erred by denying a request for her recusal. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the PCRA court for appointment of a new PCRA judge who shall prepare a fully developed opinion on all of the parties’ claims, and may hold an evidentiary hearing or grant any other relief deemed necessary.
The Commonwealth’s Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication, is granted.1
Jurisdiction relinquished; case remanded.
Chief Justice CASTILLE, Justice EAKIN, and Mesdames TODD and ORIE MELVIN join the per curiam order.
Justice BAER files a concurring statement in which Justice McCAFFERY and Madame Justice ORIE MELVIN join.
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring and dissenting statement.

. Appellant has filed a letter indicating he does not oppose the Commonwealth’s Motion.

. To that end, I respectfully differ from my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Saylor, who calls for a mandatory hearing upon remand.