Court Opinion

ID: 9785185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:07:04.656256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:08.450374
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the per curiam, merits-based disposition of this case. The allocatur stage is normally reserved for making the threshold determination of whether to grant discretionary review, see Supreme Court IOP § 5C, and as occurred here, the respondent ordinarily does not file a brief, as none is required. The majority, however, undertakes merits review at the allocatur stage to conclude that Respondent’s behavior constituted extremely dilatory conduct suffi*17cient to result in the forfeiture of his right to counsel under Commonwealth v. Lucarelli, 601 Pa. 185, 971 A.2d 1173 (2009).
I continue to adhere to the view that the Court should exercise greater restraint at the discretionary review stage. Cf. Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Henry, 607 Pa. 94, 4 A.3d 153 (2010) (Saylor, J., dissenting); County of Berks v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 129, 600 Pa. 128, 963 A.2d 1272, 1272-73 (2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting). While, like the intermediate court, I understand the trial court’s frustration with the difficult and trying problems presented by Respondent’s actions, I do not subscribe to circumventing briefing and ordinary consideration by this Court, given the factual dynamics. Cf. id.-, Supreme Court IOP § 3(B)(5).