Court Opinion

ID: 9388811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 17:07:41.262228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.792096
License: Public Domain

J-S42023-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DANIEL LEROY CONNER                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1451 WDA 2021

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 9, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
                          CP-25-CR-0002298-2020

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                FILED: APRIL 21, 2023

        Appellant, Daniel Leroy Conner, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered November 9, 2021 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common

Pleas of Erie County. We affirm.

        The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history in

this matter as follows.

        By information filed November 16, 2020, [Appellant] was charged
        with one count each of terroristic threats and harassment.1 The
        charges arose from Appellant’s [] activities on or about September
        27, 2020 in sending threatening text messages to [his] wife,
        [A.C.], from whom he was separated. According to the affidavit
        of probable cause in support of the arrest warrant, Appellant’s

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706(a)(1) and 2709(a)(4), respectively.
J-S42023-22

       text(s) to the victim included a death threat directed to her which
       placed her in fear of imminent danger.2

       The case was originally scheduled for the Erie County Court of
       Common Pleas criminal trial term[,] which started April 5, 2021.
       On April 7, 2021, two days into the term, Appellant filed a request
       for continuance and waiver of [his] speedy trial rights. The basis
       of the request was Appellant had applied for a public defender on
       April 1, 2021. [See Appellant’s Request for Continuance and
       Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights, 4/5/21]. On April 8, 2021, the
       [trial court] granted the continuance request. Appellant’s case
       was rescheduled for trial to occur two months later, during the
       June 2021 trial term[, which was] set to begin on June 7, 2021[.]

       In preparation for the June[] 2021 trial term, a pre-trial
       conference was held on May 28, 2021. Further, [] in late May
       2021, a [hearing notice advised] Appellant in writing [that] the
       start date for the June 2021 trial term was June 7, 2021[.]

       During the Pre-Trial conference on May 28, 2021, Appellant
       advised Court Administration staff he wanted to proceed without
       a lawyer, despite having previously applied for a public defender.
       A Grazier hearing was scheduled for June 2, 2021.

       On June 2, 2021, [a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v.
       Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (“Grazier”)] was held,
       Appellant’s first. [] During the Grazier colloquy, Appellant initially
       advised [that] he wished to proceed pro se. See [N.T., 6/2/21,
       at 2-4]. As the colloquy neared conclusion, the exchange in this
       regard continued:

         Ms. Anglin (Assistant District Attorney):              Do you
         understand if any errors or rule violations occur and you don’t
         object to them at the right time, you will lose your right to
         object permanently?

         Mr. Conner: Yes.
____________________________________________

2 The text message to the victim [] included a veiled threat against a third
person, [together with] a threat of harm directed toward the victim. The
content of the [texts] was that after Appellant found the third person, then he
was coming for [A.C.] who would take her last breath and whom Appellant
would kill. [Criminal Information, 11/16/20].

                                           -2-
J-S42023-22

       Ms. Anglin: Are you voluntarily giving up your right to be
       represented by an attorney?

       Mr. Conner: Yes.

       Ms. Anglin: And have you been forced or pressured in any
       way or have any promises been made to you that would
       influence your decision to waive your right to be represented?

       Mr. Conner: No.

       Ms. Anglin: All right. I’m going to hand to you the
       document as I’ve completed it and just indicate if you agree
       with how I completed the form by signing on the line marked
       defendant.

       Mr. Conner: (Defendant complies.)

     N.T., 6/2/21, at 2-4.

     As Appellant executed the waiver of counsel form, the [trial c]ourt
     inquired of the reasons for Appellant’s decision to proceed without
     a lawyer. The following exchange occurred:

       The Court: And, sir, why are you choosing to go without an
       attorney?

       Mr. Conner: I didn’t have enough time to get one and –

       The Court: Do you need more time to get an attorney? I’ll
       allow you more time to get an attorney or talk to one.

       Mr. Conner: It was just a thought.

       The Court: What’s that?

       Mr. Conner: It was a thought, yes.

       The Court: Well, listen, I’m happy to do that. I mean, I’d
       rather you have an opportunity to talk to an attorney. And
       you probably know that if you can’t afford one, one can be
       appointed for you, do you know that?

                                    -3-
J-S42023-22

       Mr. Conner: Yeah. Yes, Your Honor.

       The Court: Are you working?

       Mr. Conner: Not right now. I’m laid off.

       The Court: All right. So you may qualify to get a public
       defender. Do you want time to do that?

       Mr. Conner: Sure.

     N.T., 6/2/21, at 4-5.

     Appellant remained silent about his previous application for a
     public defender; the outcome of his application for same, and the
     fact that his case was previously scheduled for the April 2021 trial
     term but continued to the June term at Appellant’s request. The
     court graciously continued Appellant’s case to the August 2021
     trial term and advised Appellant that the [c]ourt would hold off on
     signing or filing Appellant’s waiver of counsel form.           The
     Commonwealth, under the mistaken belief the case had not been
     previously scheduled for trial during the April 2021 trial term, did
     not object to the continuance. N.T., 6/2/21, at 5-6.

     In anticipation of the August 2021 trial term, [a] notice [advising
     of a pre-trial conference to occur on July 14, 2021] was mailed to
     Appellant. [] Also, on July 12, 2021, a notice was mailed to
     Appellant instructing him to appear for trial on August 9, 2021.

     At the pre-trial conference on July 14, 2021, it was apparent
     Appellant had not yet retained private counsel or secured legal
     representation through the Office of the Public Defender.
     Accordingly, a second Grazier hearing was scheduled for July 16,
     2021[.]

     [The same trial judge who presided over Appellant’s June 2021
     Grazier hearing conducted Appellant’s hearing on] July 16, 2021.
     The following is an excerpt from the hearing:

       Mr. Sullivan (Assistance District Attorney): Umm, Mr.
       [C]onner, umm, do you understand your rights to an
       attorney?

       Mr. Conner:     Yes.

                                    -4-
J-S42023-22

       Mr. Sullivan: I note that this is not - - none of the questions
       have been answered. Do you want to review that form now
       on the record? Or - -

       Mr. Conner: No. I’ll do it. I’ll - -

       Mr. Sullivan: All right.

       The Court: All right. Sir, you’re going to go forward. I
       understand you’re, umm, going to have a non-jury trial, and
       you wanted to represent yourself at the non-jury trial?

       Mr. Conner: Yes.

       The Court: Is that what you want to do?

       Mr. Conner: Yes.

       The Court: Okay. Any reason you don’t want an attorney
       representing you?

       Mr. Conner: Umm, no.

       The Court: No? Can you afford one?

       Mr. Conner: No.

       The Court: No. Okay. Do you want one appointed to you?

       Mr. Conner: If possible.

     N.T., 7/16/21, at 2-3.

     Similar to what occurred at the first Grazier hearing, at the
     second Grazier hearing on July 16, 2021, Appellant failed to
     inform or disclose to the [c]ourt: a) he had previously applied [to
     the] Public Defender on April 1, 2021; b) the outcome of the
     application process; c) any difficulties or obstacles Appellant
     encountered in the application process; d) any reason(s) he was
     unable to secure privately retained counsel; and, e) the fact the
     case was continued previously (from the April 2021 trial term to
     the June 2021 trial term, and from the June 2021 trial term to the

                                    -5-
J-S42023-22

     August 2021 trial term) to allow Appellant secure counsel. Out of
     concern, the Court continued:
       The Court: Do you make - - let me ask you: Do you work?

       Mr. Conner: Yeah.

       The Court: You - -

       Mr. Conner: I’m laid off right now, though.

       The Court: All right. You’re laid off right now? Umm, I’m
       not sure if you’re able to be - - if you’re able to get an
       appointment or not. Do you want to pursue that opportunity
       --

       Mr. Conner: Sure.

       The Court: - - before you do this waiver?

       Mr. Conner: Sure.

       The Court: All right. Well, what we’ll do, then, sir, is we
       won’t do this today. Why don’t you contact with the Public
       Defender’s Office. All right?

       Mr. Conner: Yeah.

       The Court: They’re right down at 210 East Second Street.
       Go down there, because your case is coming up for trial. You
       don’t want to miss it. I mean, you’re here in court, so,
       obviously you show up for your court case.
       But if you want to talk to them and see if you can, umm,
       apply; whether you’ll be able to get one. I don’t know if you
       make too much money or not. If not, and you say, I can’t
       afford my own attorney, you can come and we can do this
       again. I’d rather be safe than sorry, and give the opportunity
       to talk to the Public Defender’s Office. All right?

       Mr. Conner: Okay. Thanks.

       The Court: Are you okay with that?

       Mr. Conner: Yeah.

                                   -6-
J-S42023-22

       The Court: All right. And then we won’t do anything about
       the waiver of the jury trial either at this point until you talk
       to an attorney.

       Mr. Conner: All right.

       The Court: Well, you’re good to go today. But I would get
       in contact with them right away, because this - - this case
       may be coming up for trial fairly soon. And, umm, what you
       don’t want to do is get called to trial and you’re not ready.
       You don’t have an attorney. Or you don’t show up, and then
       we think you’re ducking us, so we go and pick you up.

       Mr. Sullivan: Your Honor, I would note this is the second
       occasion where something to this effect was scheduled. On
       June 2, 2021, umm, the last time that this was scheduled,
       the Defendant did appear, and presented as thought he
       wanted an attorney, as well.

       The Court: Okay.

       Mr. Sullivan: So, I did want to note that for the record, that
       this is second scheduling of something to this effect - -

       The Court: All right.

       Mr. Sullivan: - - and the same has been represented both
       times.

       The Court: All right. And what happens is we’ll set up
       another date. And if you don’t have an attorney, in all
       likelihood, we’ll have to proceed without an attorney. But
       we’ll give you one more chance to see if you can get a Public
       Defender.

       Mr. Conner: Okay.

       The Court: All right. Very well. You’re good to go.

     N.T., 7/16/21, at 2-5 (emphasis added).

     Appellant was forewarned the continuance granted on July 16,
     2021 from the August 2021 trial term to the next available term
     would most likely be the last continuance granted in his case, and

                                    -7-
J-S42023-22

       the interval between July 16, 2021 and Appellant’s next scheduled
       trial date would be Appellant’s last opportunity to procure counsel.

       Appellant’s case was rescheduled for the third time to the criminal
       trial term commencing September 7, 2021. Appellant was notified
       of this via written notice dated and filed August 19, 2021. Another
       pre-trial conference was held on August 26, 2021.

       On September 7, 2021, at the designated time for the start of
       trial, both Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Justin Smith and
       Appellant, pro se, appeared before the [trial judge assigned to the
       case]. [ADA] Smith notified the [c]ourt, “Mr. Conner, Judge, I
       guess wants a continuance.” The [ADA] advised the [c]ourt of his
       understanding [that] Appellant wanted a continuance "for
       witnesses.” The [c]ourt advised it was too late to request a
       continuance.

       After a brief recess, the [trial c]ourt inquired of Appellant
       numerous times why, after approximately, one year,3 Appellant
       ha[d] not yet obtained a lawyer. Appellant alternately indicated
       he wanted a continuance because: he’d been working for the past
       year; he never previously requested a continuance; he did not
       have enough time to obtain a lawyer; he did not have enough time
       “to subpoena the right people to his trial”; “the DA has it all
       wrong;” and Appellant tried but could not get a lawyer.

       The Commonwealth objected to any further continuance, citing
       inter alia, the multiple prior continuances at Appellant’s request;
       the Commonwealth’s readiness to proceed to trial with witnesses
       present and available to testify; and the fact the court room was
       filled with persons who reported for jury duty service. The court
       denied Appellant’s fourth request for a continuance.

       On September 7, 2021, following a trial by jury, Appellant was
       convicted of one count each of terroristic threats and harassment.

       On November 9, 2021, the Appellant was sentenced to an
       aggregate of two years of probation as follows:

____________________________________________

3Appellant’s preliminary hearing was scheduled for October 8, 2020. On that
date, Appellant appeared before the Magisterial District Judge and executed a
waiver of counsel form and waived the preliminary hearing.

                                           -8-
J-S42023-22

      Count One: Terroristic Threats – County Regular Probation for two
      years;
      Count Two: Harassment – County Regular Probation for one year,
      concurrent with Count One.

      The sentences were at the low end of the standard range of the
      sentencing guidelines. Appellant was represented by counsel at
      sentencing.

      Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 7, 2021. On
      December 8, 2021, the [trial c]ourt issued a [Rule] 1925(b) order,
      directing Appellant to file a [Rule] 1925(b) [concise statement]
      within [21] days. On December 28, 2021, Appellant filed a concise
      statement [and the trial court issued an opinion on March 7,
      2022].

Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/22, at 1-9 (footnotes in original; superfluous

capitalization omitted).

      In his brief, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.

      1. Did the Commonwealth present insufficient evidence to
         sustain Appellant’s conviction for terroristic threats where the
         circumstances reveal Appellant did not have the intent to
         terrorize?

      2. Did the trial court err by forcing Appellant to go to trial without
         an attorney where Appellant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and
         intelligently waive his right to counsel and where Appellant did
         not forfeit his right to counsel by dilatory conduct?

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

      We have carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, the trial

court’s opinion, and the certified record. Based upon our review, we concur

in the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant’s claims are without merit, and he

is not entitled to relief.   Specifically, we agree with the trial court that

Appellant waived his sufficiency challenge for lack of specificity in his Rule

                                      -9-
J-S42023-22

1925(b) statement and, if not waived, the claim is wholly devoid of merit.

See Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/22, at 10-12. In addition, we concur with the

trial court that, under the circumstances, Appellant forfeited his right to

counsel where, after three requested continuances to obtain counsel,

Appellant appeared at trial without the aid of an attorney and tendered a

fourth continuance request without a cogent explanation. See id. at 12-15.

Because we find that the trial court has adequately and accurately examined

Appellant’s claims, we adopt its March 7, 2022 opinion as our own.

Accordingly, the parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court’s

opinion to all future filings pertaining to the disposition of this appeal.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/21/2023

                                      - 10 -
Circulated 04/03/2023 02:15 PM