Court Opinion

ID: 9383533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 16:11:13.1008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.952227
License: Public Domain

J-S07024-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ROBERT BASS                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 420 EDA 2021

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 2, 2020,
             in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004051-2015.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                         FILED MARCH 30, 2023

       Robert Bass appeals from the order dismissing his first petition filed

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. We

remand for further proceedings.

       Bass was convicted at a non-jury trial of attempted murder and other

offenses committed on October 16, 2014.            On August 26, 2016, the court

sentenced Bass to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years of imprisonment and

10 years of probation. This Court affirmed on direct appeal, and the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania denied review. Commonwealth v. Bass, No. 623 EDA

2017 (Pa. Super. May 29, 2018) (non-precedential decision), appeal denied,

No. 280 EAL 2018 (Pa. Oct. 16, 2018).1

____________________________________________

1 Bass’ sole issue on direct appeal was whether the trial court violated Bass’
right to a jury trial by holding its ruling on a motion in limine in abeyance.
J-S07024-23

      On November 13, 2019, Bass filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, his

first. The PCRA court appointed Douglas Dolfman, Esq. as PCRA counsel. Bass

then submitted several documents that the Clerk of Courts time-stamped and

placed in his file. On February 11, 2020, he provided a copy of a letter he

sent to Attorney Dolfman, as well as a list of five issues he wished to raise.

On March 13, 2020, he filed a motion requesting new counsel, in which he

expressed his belief that Attorney Dolfman had abandoned him. On March

31, 2020, he filed an “amendment to pending PCRA issues.” The certified

record does not reflect that the PCRA court disposed of Bass’ pro se filings

before dismissing Bass’ petition.

      The PCRA court received Attorney Dolfman’s “no-merit” letter dated

March 20, 2020. However, the no-merit letter does not appear in the certified

record on this date, nor is it accompanied by a copy of any letter from Attorney

Dolfman to Bass. On October 1, 2020, the PCRA court entered a notice of its

intent to dismiss Bass’ petition without a hearing. Bass filed a pro se “motion

in objection” on October 20, 2020. On November 2, 2020 and November 5,

2020, the PCRA court entered orders dismissing Bass’ petition.       The latter

order included language advising Bass of his right to appeal. Neither order

granted Attorney Dolfman leave to withdraw as PCRA counsel.

      On February 2, 2021, this Court received Bass’ pro se notice of appeal

and a petition for leave to file the appeal nunc pro tunc, both dated January

29, 2021. Our Prothonotary directed Attorney Dolfman, who remained Bass’

counsel, to file a docketing statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 3517.     He did not. On

                                     -2-
J-S07024-23

June 4, 2021, we directed the PCRA court to determine if Attorney Dolfman

had abandoned Bass. The PCRA court entered an opinion indicating that it

had entered an order “allowing [Attorney Dolfman] to withdraw, having

concluded that counsel had properly requested to do so when filing the [no-

merit letter] and that counsel has not abandoned [Bass].”          PCRA Court

Opinion, 6/28/21, at 3.2        Because no such order appeared in the certified

record, we directed the PCRA court to enter this order on the docket.

       The PCRA court thereafter granted Attorney Dolfman permission to

withdraw and appointed Jason Kadish, Esq. to represent Bass in his PCRA

appeal. However, Attorney Kadish moved to withdraw because he had been

Bass’ trial counsel. We granted Attorney Kadish’s motion, and the PCRA court

appointed John Belli, Esq. to represent Bass. On Attorney Belli’s motion, we

remanded for the nunc pro tunc filing of a new Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement

and PCRA court opinion. Attorney Belli filed a 1925(b) statement on February

6, 2022. He then passed away on February 23, 2022.

       The PCRA court appointed Lauren Wimmer, Esq. as Bass’ PCRA counsel

on March 3, 2022. Attorney Wimmer elected to rely on the existing 1925(b)

statement filed by Attorney Belli. The PCRA court entered a supplemental

Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 27, 2022.

       Bass presents three issues for our review:

____________________________________________

2The opinion also stated that Bass’ appeal was timely. PCRA Court Opinion,
6/28/21, at 2. This appears to be an abbreviated way to say that the PCRA
court granted Bass’ petition to appeal nunc pro tunc.

                                           -3-
J-S07024-23

       I.     Whether the PCRA court erred as a matter of law in failing
              to hold a hearing on [Bass’] March 13, 2020 motion for new
              PCRA counsel where the record is clear that court-appointed
              counsel abandoned [Bass] during the proceedings of his first
              PCRA petition.

       II.    Whether [Bass] is entitled to remand for the filing of an
              amended PCRA petition because the PCRA court erred in
              dismissing [Bass’] petition without ordering counsel to
              comply with Turner and Finley.[3]

       III.   Whether PCRA counsel deprived [Bass] of effective
              assistance of counsel during his first PCRA petition.

Bass’ Brief at 3.

       Our standard of review from the dismissal of a PCRA petition is to

determine whether the order “is supported by the record and free of legal

error.” Commonwealth v. Drummond, 285 A.3d 625, 633 (Pa. 2022). We

review a court’s treatment of a motion for new counsel for an abuse of

discretion. Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 266 (Pa. 2008) (citing

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139, 1150 (Pa. 2000)).

       Bass first argues that the PCRA court erred by failing to hold a hearing

on his pro se motion for new counsel, filed March 13, 2020. The PCRA court

found that Attorney Dolfman did not abandon Bass based on Bass’ earlier

letter mentioning a “brief telephone call” with Bass on approximately February

4, 2020. Supplemental Opinion, 4/27/22, at 3, 8.4

____________________________________________

3Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
4In its opinion, the PCRA court addressed the lack of a hearing on Bass’ PCRA
petition, not on his motion for new counsel. Supplemental Opinion, 4/27/22,
at 5. We find that Bass’ 1925(b) statement preserved this issue.

                                           -4-
J-S07024-23

       We find that the PCRA court abused its discretion by failing to hold a

hearing on Bass’ pro se motion for new counsel. A trial court is not required

to hear a motion for new counsel “where the defendant provides only a general

averment of inadequate representation.”          Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 266–67

(citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 522 A.2d 1058, 1061 (Pa. 1987)); see

Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(C) (requiring “substantial reasons” to appoint new counsel).

Here, Bass alleged that Attorney Dolfman had abandoned him, specifically

noting the lack of letters or case documents.          Motion for New Counsel,

3/13/20, at 1–2. Notably, nothing appears in the certified record between

Bass’ pro se filings and the PCRA court’s notice of intent to dismiss Bass’ PCRA

petition over seven months later. We do not find Bass’ earlier reference to a

“brief telephone call” enough to resolve the issue of whether Attorney Dolfman

had abandoned Bass, depriving him of his right to counsel.                 See

Commonwealth v. Betts, 240 A.3d 616, 621 (Pa. Super. 2020).5 The PCRA

court thus abused its discretion by failing to hear Bass’ motion for new counsel

and by failing to enter a ruling on this motion.

       Bass’ second issue stems from Attorney Dolfman’s failure to comply with

the requirements for withdrawal based on an assessment that Bass’ claims

had no merit. This Court has explained the applicable procedure:

____________________________________________

5 We are sympathetic to a trial court faced with prolific pro se filings by a
counseled defendant. While these ordinarily constitute hybrid representation,
this Court has recognized an exception for a defendant abandoned by counsel.
See Commonwealth v. Leatherbury, 116 A.3d 73, 79 (Pa. Super. 2015)

                                           -5-
J-S07024-23

      Counsel petitioning to withdraw from PCRA representation must
      proceed not under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
      but under Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988),
      and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).
      Similar to the Anders situation, Turner/Finley counsel must
      review the case zealously. See Commonwealth v. Mosteller,
      633 A.2d 615, 617 (Pa. Super. 1993). Turner/Finley counsel
      must then submit a “no-merit” letter to the trial court, or brief on
      appeal to this Court, detailing the nature and extent of counsel’s
      diligent review of the case, listing the issues which the petitioner
      wants to have reviewed, explaining why and how those issues lack
      merit, and requesting permission to withdraw. Commonwealth
      v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 947 (Pa. Super. 2003).

            Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the
      “no-merit” letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel’s petition to
      withdraw; and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the right to
      proceed pro se or by new counsel. Commonwealth v. Friend,
      896 A.2d 607, 615 (Pa. Super. 2006).

             If counsel fails to satisfy the foregoing technical
      prerequisites of Turner/Finley, the court will not reach the merits
      of the underlying claims but, rather, will merely deny counsel’s
      request to withdraw. Mosteller, 633 A.2d at 617. Upon doing
      so, the court will then take appropriate steps, such as directing
      counsel to file a proper Turner/Finley request or an advocate’s
      brief. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d at 948.

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations

altered).

      Here, Bass and the Commonwealth agree that the certified record does

not demonstrate that Attorney Dolfman complied with the Turner/Finley

requirements. The no-merit letter, attached to the PCRA court’s opinion, is

not stamped by the Clerk of Courts, nor is it accompanied by a certificate of

service. Although the letter itself states that counsel informed Bass of his

right to proceed pro se or with new counsel, the record does not contain a

copy of any communication to Bass. Because Bass is currently represented

                                     -6-
J-S07024-23

by new counsel, we will not direct the PCRA court to reinstate Attorney

Dolfman. Rather, we will allow present PCRA counsel to continue to represent

Bass on remand.

      Bass’ third issue is that Attorney Dolfman was ineffective as PCRA

counsel. Bass emphasizes that his pro se Rule 1925(b) statement provided

meritorious claims that he contends Attorney Dolfman should have addressed.

The Commonwealth responds that Bass has waived these claims of PCRA

counsel’s ineffectiveness by failing to develop them.

      Our Supreme Court held that to vindicate the right to effective

assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner may raise claims of PCRA counsel’s

effectiveness at the first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa. 2021).              The court

explained the procedure for disposing of such a claim:

            In some instances, the record before the appellate court will
      be sufficient to allow for disposition of any newly-raised
      ineffectiveness claims. However, in other cases, the appellate
      court may need to remand to the PCRA court for further
      development of the record and for the PCRA court to consider such
      claims as an initial matter. Consistent with our prior case law, to
      advance a request for remand, a petition would be required to
      provide more than mere boilerplate assertions of PCRA counsel’s
      ineffectiveness; however, where there are material facts at issue
      concerning claims challenging counsel’s stewardship and relief is
      not plainly unavailable as a matter of law, the remand should be
      afforded.

Id. at 402 (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).

      We conclude that this is an appropriate case to remand to allow Bass to

further develop the record of his claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness.

                                     -7-
J-S07024-23

These start with whether Attorney Dolfman properly apprised Bass of the no-

merit letter and Bass’ right to proceed pro se or with a new attorney. On

remand, the PCRA court should determine whether Attorney Dolfman did not

comply with the Turner/Finley requirements or otherwise abandoned Bass.

Upon such a finding, present counsel should be permitted leave to file an

amended petition on Bass’ behalf, fully developing any potentially meritorious

claim. This relief comports with other remands following Bradley. See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Williams, 2022 WL 1026702 (Pa. Super. Apr. 6, 2022)

(non-precedential memorandum).

      Order     vacated;   case   remanded   with   instructions.   Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/30/2023

                                      -8-