Court Opinion

ID: 9914236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 20:09:03.562522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:45.916739
License: Public Domain

J-S39045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 MICHAEL JASON KIMBALL                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 257 MDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 16, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-08-CR-0000812-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 MICHAEL JASON KIMBALL                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 258 MDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 16, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-08-CR-0000813-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 MICHAEL JASON KIMBALL                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 259 MDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 16, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-08-CR-0000814-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S39045-23

                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    MICHAEL JASON KIMBALL                        :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :   No. 260 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 16, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-08-CR-0000889-2021

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                     FILED: DECEMBER 29, 2023

       Michael Jason Kimball (Appellant) appeals from the January 16, 2023,

orders entered in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas, denying his

petition seeking relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).1 Counsel

has filed a petition to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967).2 We conclude that the PCRA court deprived Appellant

of his right to counsel and therefore vacate the order and remand for further

proceedings.

       The facts underlying Appellant’s convictions are immaterial to our

disposition.   We briefly note that Appellant faced charges at four separate
____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9545.

2 A petition to withdraw from PCRA representation must proceed under
Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth
v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). “Because an Anders
brief provides greater protection to a defendant, this Court may accept an
Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter.”        Commonwealth v.
Widgins, 29 A.3d 816, 817 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

                                           -2-
J-S39045-23

criminal dockets. The Commonwealth and Appellant negotiated a global guilty

plea, which specified that there was no agreement as to Appellant’s sentence,

except with respect to one charge.     The trial court accepted the plea and

ordered a pre-sentence report. Appellant subsequently received an aggregate

sentence of 13 months and 10 days of incarceration to 56 months of

incarceration, followed by one year of probation.

      Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which were denied on May 4,

2022. Appellant did not file a direct appeal and his judgment of sentence

became final on June 3, 2022. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (notice of appeal shall

be filed within 30 days of order). One week later, on June 10, 2022, Appellant

filed a pro se PCRA petition at each of the four dockets.

      On June 23, 2022, the PCRA court appointed Jillian Kochis, Esq., to

represent Appellant, and set a deadline of August 19, 2022, for Attorney

Kochis to file an amended petition. See Order, 6/23/22 at 1 (unpaginated).

The next entry in the certified record is an order giving “notice pursuant to

Rule 907(1) . . . that the court is satisfied from review of the petition” that

Appellant was not entitled to post-conviction relief. See Order, 12/12/22, at

1 (unpaginated).   The PCRA court issued an accompanying opinion, which

included a recognition that “[n]o amendment was filed.”        PCRA Ct. Op.,

12/12/22, at 1 (unpaginated). Thereafter, the PCRA court denied the petition

on January 16, 2023.

      Attorney Kochis filed timely notices of appeal at all four dockets on

February 15, 2023. She also filed motions to withdraw, stating that she was

                                     -3-
J-S39045-23

“currently unable to fulfill her obligations of representation in this matter due

to the tedious and time-consuming nature of PCRA [p]etitions.” See Motions

to Withdraw, 2/15/23, at 2. The PCRA court did not rule on her withdrawal

requests, but instead issued orders requiring Appellant to file concise

statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

See Orders, 3/10/23 at 1 (unpaginated).

       Meanwhile, on March 7, 2023, Attorney Kochis filed, in this Court,

applications seeking to withdraw as counsel and appoint substitute counsel.

Attorney Kochis did not cite time constraints; instead, she stated that on

January 25, 2023, another client advised her “that he was a victim of one of

Appellant’s alleged criminal offenses” at one of the dockets. See Applications

to Withdraw, 3/7/23, at 1 (unpaginated). Attorney Kochis asserted a conflict

of interest, cited the outstanding motions to withdraw at the Court of Common

Pleas level, and explained that the notices of appeal were filed to ensure

Appellant’s rights were preserved. See id. at 2-3. In response, this Court

directed the PCRA court to address the pending motions to withdraw.

Thereafter, on March 31, 2023, the PCRA court granted Attorney Kochis

permission to withdraw at all four dockets. The PCRA court also appointed

Attorney Terry McDonald, Esq., to represent Appellant on appeal.3

       Attorney McDonald has now filed petitions to withdraw and an Anders

brief with this Court. The Commonwealth has not filed an appellee brief.
____________________________________________

3 This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte.    See Order, 6/26/23.

                                           -4-
J-S39045-23

      Ordinarily, we would proceed to examine whether counsel’s application

to withdraw and accompanying brief satisfy the procedural and substantive

requirements of our caselaw. See Widgins, supra at 819. That review is

unnecessary, however, as we conclude that Appellant was denied his right to

counsel for his first PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720

A.2d 693, 699 (Pa. 1999) (“The denial of PCRA relief cannot stand unless the

petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel.”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C)

(indigent petitioners are entitled to appointment of counsel to represent them

in litigating their first PCRA petitions).

      The PCRA court denied Appellant of his right to counsel by addressing

the merits of his pro se claims rather than waiting for appointed counsel to

act. In Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2018), we

held that when appointed counsel files an amended PCRA petition, he or she

cannot incorporate by reference the pro se claims.

      Counsel’s attempt to incorporate by reference, without any further
      explanation or elaboration upon the legal validity of such claims,
      amounts to hybrid representation, which is not permitted. See
      Commonwealth v. Tedford, 598 Pa. 639, 960 A.2d 1, 10 n.4
      (2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel
      is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate
      certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”)
      (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d
      706, 713 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[T]he PCRA court is only
      permitted to address issues raised in a counseled petition.”)
      (citations omitted). It is incumbent upon counsel to examine the
      merits of the pro se claims and determine whether those issues
      are worth pursuing in an amended petition. Thus, the pro se
      claims could not be merely incorporated, and, in turn, are waived
      on appeal. Accordingly, we find that the sole claim preserved for
      our review is the one contained in the counseled PCRA petition.

                                        -5-
J-S39045-23

Id. at 1157 (footnote omitted).

      While an amended petition was not filed in the present case, Johnson

illustrates that a PCRA court cannot address the merits of an appellant’s pro

se claims while he is represented by counsel.       The purpose of appointing

counsel is to develop the pro se claims, if warranted, in an amended petition.

Alternatively, if counsel seeks “to withdraw on the ground that the issues

raised by the PCRA petitioner are without merit, [counsel] must . . . file a

sufficient no-merit letter, send the PCRA petitioner copies of the application to

withdraw and no-merit letter, and advise the PCRA petitioner of his right to

proceed pro se or with a privately retained attorney.” Commonwealth v.

Kelsey, 206 A.3d 1135, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted).

Moreover, this process provides additional protection as “[o]nce counsel has

been appointed for an indigent petitioner, the rules of criminal procedure

further contemplate after reviewing the certified record appointed counsel

may . . . elect to raise additional issues beyond those which the petitioner

raised in the initial pro se filing.” Commonwealth v. Padden, 783 A.2d 299,

308 (Pa. Super. 2001).

      By addressing the merits of Appellant’s pro se claims without the benefit

of appointed counsel’s review and compliance with the procedures outlined

above, which could include raising additional issues, the PCRA court deprived

Appellant of his rule-based right to counsel. We are therefore constrained to

deny counsel’s applications to withdraw, reverse the PCRA court’s orders, and

remand the matter for further proceedings. “[T]he fact that [Appellant] was

                                      -6-
J-S39045-23

effectively denied his right to counsel in his first PCRA petition requires us to

vacate the court’s . . . order denying his petition.” Commonwealth v. Willis,

29 A.3d 393, 400 (Pa. Super. 2011).

      On remand, we direct the PCRA court to relieve current counsel and

appoint new counsel. See Willis, 29 A.3d at 400 (directing PCRA court to

relieve counsel and appoint new counsel where counsel had filed “no merit”

letter and motion to withdraw and advocated against client’s interests at

hearing conducted prior to court ruling on motion). New counsel shall then

file an amended petition, or a proper Turner/Finley “no merit” letter and

accompanying request to withdraw.

      Orders reversed. Applications to withdraw denied. Case remanded for

further   proceedings   consistent   with   this   memorandum.       Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/29/2023

                                      -7-