Court Opinion

ID: 9378232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 19:07:24.33011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.603755
License: Public Domain

J-S40014-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE                      :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :    No. 1906 EDA 2021

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 12, 2021
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008435-2013

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE                      :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :    No. 1907 EDA 2021

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 12, 2021
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008752-2013

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                          FILED MARCH 09, 2023

      Christopher Lawrence appeals from the order dismissing his first petition

for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 9541-9546. We conclude that Lawrence’s PCRA counsel was per se

ineffective, and remand with instructions.
J-S40014-22

        In the early morning hours of May 14, 2013, police reported to a

restaurant after hearing gunshots. The responding officers observed three

men with gunshot wounds. A witness, who had pulled up outside the

restaurant while driving a utility truck, observed three men running from the

scene. The witness later identified Lawrence from a photo array. Lawrence

challenged the witness’s identification through a motion to suppress, which

the trial court denied.

        Following a jury trial at trial court docket number 8435-2013 (“No.

8435-2013”), Lawrence was convicted of one count each of attempted

murder, conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license and carrying

firearms on public streets in Philadelphia, and three counts each of aggravated

assault and robbery – inflict serious bodily injury.1 At trial court docket number

8752-2013 (“No. 8752-2013”), the trial court conducted a separate bench trial

and found Lawrence guilty of persons not to possess firearms.2

        The trial court sentenced Lawrence to an aggregate term of 27½ to 55

years in prison. Lawrence filed a timely post-sentence motion at both dockets,

which was ultimately denied by operation of law.

        On direct appeal, Lawrence raised several claims relating to the

discretionary    aspects     of   his   sentence.   In   its   appellee’s   brief,   the

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 903, 6106(a)(1), 6108, 2702(a)(1), and
3701(a)(1)(i).

2   See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

                                           -2-
J-S40014-22

Commonwealth identified two additional sentencing issues: (1) the trial court

stated on the record its intention to merge the attempted murder and

aggravated assault convictions relating to the same victim but failed to do so

in its sentencing order; and (2) the trial court improperly applied the deadly

weapon used enhancement for the firearms convictions at No. 8435-2013.

This Court, agreeing with the Commonwealth’s arguments, vacated the

separate aggravated assault sentence and vacated the sentences for

Lawrence’s firearms convictions at No. 8435-2013. We affirmed the judgment

of sentence in all other respects. See Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 195

A.3d 963, 3539 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 1, 2018) (unpublished

memorandum). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.

See Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 197 A.3d 1173 (Pa. 2018).

      On October 10, 2019, Lawrence filed, pro se, the instant timely PCRA

petition. Lawrence generally argued that an investigating detective offered

false testimony at trial; the search warrant was not supported by probable

cause; and the photo array through which a witness identified Lawrence was

unduly suggestive. Lawrence also claimed his trial counsel rendered ineffective

assistance and identified seven specific instances of alleged ineffectiveness.

      The PCRA court appointed Robert J. Dixon, Esquire, as PCRA counsel.

Attorney Dixon filed an amended PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance

of counsel for trial counsel’s failure to (1) litigate a pre-trial motion challenging

the validity of the search warrant for Lawrence’s property, which he alleged

                                        -3-
J-S40014-22

was not properly signed; and (2) file a post-trial motion challenging the denial

of Lawrence’s motion to suppress identification evidence. In response, the

Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss.

        After issuing appropriate notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA

court dismissed Lawrence’s PCRA petition without a hearing. Attorney Dixon

filed a timely notice of appeal at each docket number on Lawrence’s behalf. 3,4

On October 5, 2021, the PCRA court ordered Lawrence to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days

of the date of the order. Lawrence, pro se, filed a Rule 1925(b) concise

statement on October 25, 2021, one day before the time for doing so expired.

Attorney Dixon did not file a concise statement on Lawrence’s behalf. There is

no    indication   that   Attorney     Dixon     sought   leave   to   withdraw   from

representation. Attorney Dixon has since filed an appellate brief in this

matter.5

____________________________________________

3Attorney Dixon and the PCRA court both state that Lawrence filed the notice
of appeal pro se. See Appellant’s Brief at 6; PCRA Court Opinion, 11/30/21,
at 2 n.1.

4   This Court sua sponte consolidated Lawrence’s appeals for review.

5  In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court acknowledges that Lawrence
filed a pro se 1925(b) concise statement. However, the PCRA court did not
address the propriety of this procedure. Instead, the PCRA court concluded
that Lawrence waived his claims by failing to raise them in response to the
Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice. See PCRA Court Opinion, 11/30/21, at 3.

                                           -4-
J-S40014-22

      As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Lawrence’s claims

are preserved for review. Hybrid representation is not permitted in this

Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 228 A.3d 577, 580 (Pa.

Super. 2020). Therefore, pro se filings submitted while an appellant is

counseled are generally considered legal nullities. See id. However, this Court

has   previously   recognized     attempts    by   appellants   to   protect   their

constitutional right to appeal. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d

621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016) (accepting appellant’s pro se notice of appeal as

timely, even where he was represented by counsel, to protect his

constitutional right, and deeming the trial court’s failure to forward the pro se

filing to this Court a breakdown in operations); see also Commonwealth v.

Muhammed, 219 A.3d 1207, 1210 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“[A] counseled

defendant may act on his own behalf to protect important rights where counsel

remains technically attached to the case, but is no longer serving his client’s

interest.”). In contrast, this Court does not accept pro se court-ordered Rule

1925(b)     concise       statements   from    represented      appellants.    See

Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (Pa. 2010) (“Moreover, appellant

was represented by counsel on appeal, so his pro se Rule 1925(b) statement

was a legal nullity.”).

      Counsel’s failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) concise statement

constitutes per se ineffective assistance. See Commonwealth v. Burton,

973 A.2d 428, 432 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc). Because Attorney Dixon was

                                       -5-
J-S40014-22

counsel of record and did not withdraw from representation, his failure to file

a Rule 1925(b) concise statement on Lawrence’s behalf constituted per se

ineffective assistance. Compounding Attorney Dixon’s ineffectiveness, the

appellate brief filed by Attorney Dixon fails to adequately develop Lawrence’s

claims for review.

      Based upon the foregoing, we remand this case to the PCRA court with

the directive to remove Attorney Dixon. The PCRA court shall also appoint

Lawrence new counsel to assist him within 21 days of the date the certified

record is returned to the PCRA court. New counsel shall enter his or her

appearance and file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement with the PCRA court

within 21 days of the date of appointment, unless this time is otherwise

extended by the PCRA court. The PCRA court may file a supplemental Rule

1925(a) opinion as necessary to address the claims raised by new counsel.

      Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained.

                                     -6-