Court Opinion

ID: 9352075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 20:06:51.420807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:52.253613
License: Public Domain

J-S38026-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 TYREEK AZIZ MULDROW                      :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 1054 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 3, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-39-CR-0002755-2015

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 4, 2023

      I agree with the Majority decision. I write separately to address a

procedural issue that remains unresolved in our law. In Commonwealth v.

Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa. 2021), our Supreme Court held that “a PCRA

petitioner may, after a PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new

counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the

first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.”    This decision ensured that

defendants would have competent counsel through the entirety of their legal

proceedings, including a first, counseled PCRA petition.

      In Commonwealth v. Parrish, 273 A.3d 989, 1002 (Pa. 2022) the

high court expanded on Bradley, noting that when a defendant raises

ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel for the first time on appeal, a remand to the

PCRA court may be necessary when there are “material facts at issue

concerning claims challenging counsel’s stewardship and relief is not plainly
J-S38026-22

unavailable as a matter of law.” The court also stated that Rule of Appellate

Procedure 302(a) which provides that “issues no raised in the trial court are

waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal” does not pertain to

this scenario. Id.

         Absent from these decisions, however, is how or exactly when a PCRA

petitioner must raise the issue of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness. Notably, in

Parrish, the petitioner filed a pro se amended 1925(b) concise statement of

issues on appeal. Writing for the majority, Justice Donahue found that Parrish

“adequately raised and preserved his layered claim of the ineffective

assistance of trial and initial PCRA counsel by raising it at the first opportunity

to do so, specifically in his [Rule] 1925(b) Statement and in his brief filed with

[the Supreme Court] in this appeal.” Parrish, 273 A.3d at 1002.

         Here, the Appellant did not raise the issue until the filing of his appellate

brief.    Since our high court in Bradley and Parrish held the petitioner must

raise the issue of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness “at the first opportunity to do

so,” and since the Commonwealth did not claim that Appellant waived his

claim by not raising it sooner (i.e., in his original or an amended 1925(b)

statement), I believe Appellant satisfied the requirement by raising it for the

first time in his appellate brief.      Compare Commonwealth v. Womack,

2022 WL 17099016 (Pa. Super. 2022) (non-precedential decision) (agreeing

with the Commonwealth’s waiver argument when the petitioner did not raise

his claim of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness in his Rule 1925(b) statement, but

rather, for the first time in his appellate brief).

                                         -2-
J-S38026-22

     I realize that the issue of PCRA’s counsel’s ineffectiveness may rise not

only at the proceeding in the PCRA court, but also during the appeal of the

PCRA petition.   As such, the “earliest possible opportunity” may vary

depending on the circumstances. I caution defendants and their counsel to

be wary of this and not delay in raising the issue; otherwise, the issue may

be waived.

     Judge Sullivan joins the concurring memorandum.

                                    -3-