Court Opinion

ID: 9909154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:09:33.608949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:08.896520
License: Public Domain

J-A19030-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: N.K., A                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: N.K., MINOR                       :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1904 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered July 11, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
               Juvenile Division at No: CP-51-JV-0000818-2020

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                          FILED DECEMBER 12, 2023

       Appellant, N.K., a minor, appeals from the July 11, 2022 order entered

in the Juvenile Division of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,

denying his motion for relief nunc pro tunc. Upon review, we reverse the July

11, 2022 order and remand with instructions.

       The underlying facts leading to Appellant’s arrest are not the focus of

this appeal.     Rather, our focus is on the events that occurred following

Appellant’s May 2020 arrest when he was 17 years old and was charged in

relation to multiple incidents that occurred between 2014 and 2018.

       Attorney Thomas Kenney (“Private Counsel”) entered an appearance on

Appellant’s behalf in May 2020 and continued his representation into 2022,

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19030-23

during which time a number of adjudicatory hearings were conducted and

Appellant was largely on GPS monitoring and in-home detention.

       During a July 27, 2021 adjudicatory hearing before the Honorable Robert

J. Rebstock, Appellant tendered an admission to a charge of Sexual Assault,

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3214.1, a second-degree felony.        The remaining charges

against him were withdrawn/nolle prossed.1 Following the hearing, Appellant

was placed on deferred adjudication. He remained subject to, inter alia, in-

home detention; was placed on interim probation; and was ordered to

complete treatment at the Joseph J. Peters Institute (“JJPI”) and to attend

school, while being subject to a stay-away order. Appellant again appeared

before Judge Rebstock in September and December of 2021 and remained

subject to the same conditions.

       As the juvenile court (the Honorable Jospeh Fernandes) explained:

       On February 1, 2022, [Appellant] was to appear in front [of] the
       Honorable Joseph Fernandes but did not appear; however, his
       Private Counsel appeared telephonically. The Probation Officer
       was ordered to serve the outcome order. [Appellant] remained on
       deferred adjudication, interim probation, and [Philadelphia Youth
       Advocacy Program (“PYAP”)] in-home detention. He was also
       ordered to complete treatment at JJPI and was also referred to
       [Assessment and Treatment Alternatives (“ATA”)] for sex offender
       treatment. [Appellant] was ordered to appear at the next date.

____________________________________________

1  The additional charges included Rape—Forcible Compulsion (F1),
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(A)(1); Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse—Forcible
Compulsion (F1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(A)(1); Indecent Assault (complainant
less than 13 years of age) (F3), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(A)(7); and Recklessly
Endangering Another Person (M2), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.

                                           -2-
J-A19030-23

      On February 9, 2022, [Appellant] appeared in front of the
      Honorable Joseph Fernandes and his deferred adjudication was
      revoked as a result of non-compliance with his conditions.
      [Appellant] had been previously arrested as an adult in January
      2022. Private Counsel was present. [Appellant] was adjudicated
      delinquent on the charge of Sexual Assault. He was placed on
      probation with the Juvenile Enforcement Unit (“JET”), due to being
      considered high risk, [and was discharged from in-home
      detention, placed on GPS monitoring with permission to attend
      school, and ordered to attend sex offender treatment and to follow
      all probation directives regarding that treatment].

Opinion, 12/1/22, at 4-5. As Appellant recounts,

      No statement was made on the record to inform [Appellant] of his
      post-dispositional rights, either by the court or by counsel.
      [Private Counsel] did not speak with [Appellant] about filing a
      motion for reconsideration that day or at any subsequent point,
      and no motion was filed by [Private Counsel] on [Appellant’s]
      behalf.

Appellant’s Brief at 12.

      In its December 1, 2022 opinion, the juvenile court summarized the

additional proceedings conducted during 2022. As reflected in that summary,

Private Counsel did not attend any proceedings after the February 9, 2022

hearing during which Appellant was adjudicated.           Nevertheless, Private

Counsel remained attorney of record as of a March 15 and April 22, 2022

review hearings, both of which were held before a judicial court hearing officer.

During the April 22, 2022 review hearing, the Public Defender was verbally

appointed. Although Private Counsel remained of record when another review

hearing was conducted on June 1, 2022, only the Public Defender was present

on Appellant’s behalf at that proceeding.     At the conclusion of the June 1

hearing, Appellant was ordered to remain on probation and GPS with a curfew,

                                      -3-
J-A19030-23

area restrictions, and a stay-away order; to attend school; and to continue

TAP. Opinion, 12/1/22, at 5.

       On the same day, which was fewer than sixty days after counsel’s

appointment, the Public Defender filed a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Relief in

accordance with Pa.R.J.C.P. 622,2 claiming ineffectiveness of Private Counsel

and seeking withdrawal of Appellant’s admission relating to Sexual Assault3

and reinstatement of Appellant’s post-dispositional rights.

       A hearing was subsequently scheduled for June 28, 2022, before a

hearing officer rather than the juvenile court judge. Consequently, Appellant

did not believe it was scheduled in response to the nunc pro tunc motion.

Appellant’s Brief at 14.

       Appellant’s nunc pro tunc motion was addressed at a dispositional

hearing before Judge Fernandes on July 11, 2022. As Appellant asserts:

       Before hearing from [the Public Defender], and without holding an
       evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court denied the motion [at the
       July 11, 2022 hearing]. Counsel requested to be heard and
       argued that [Appellant] should be granted the ability to pursue
       post-dispositional relief. Specifically, new counsel averred that on
       February 9th, [Private Counsel] stated in from of P.O. McGlinn and
       the court staff that he would file a motion to reconsider the
____________________________________________

2 Rule 622 directs that a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Relief be filed “as soon as

possible but no later than sixty days after the date that the error was made
known.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 622(A).

3 We note that Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(4) authorizes the withdrawal of an
admission prior to the court entering the dispositional order. However, after
entry of the dispositional order, an admission may be withdrawn only upon a
demonstration of manifest injustice.

                                           -4-
J-A19030-23

     adjudication, but then ceased all contact with [Appellant] and
     failed to appear at subsequent hearings, calling into question
     counsel’s effectiveness. New counsel also argued the [Appellant]
     was presumed innocent of his charges in adult court, calling into
     question the basis for the adjudication of delinquency. Further,
     new counsel explained that [Appellant] effectively had no counsel
     during the ten-day period he had to assert post-dispositional
     rights (or 30 days to appeal), and he therefore lost his opportunity
     to do so. The juvenile court maintained its position and denied
     the Motion.

Appellant’s Brief at 14-15 (citations to Notes of Testimony from 7/11/22

omitted).

     This timely appeal followed.     Both Appellant and the juvenile court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

     Appellant asks us to consider the following two issues:

     1. Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in denying a juvenile
     the right to litigate, nunc pro tunc, whether his admission should
     be withdrawn and a new hearing held, where all the requirements
     for a movant seeking such relief were established and
     substantively supported by sufficient averments of ineffective
     assistance of prior counsel?

     2. Should the juvenile court’s denial of nunc pro tunc relief be
     reversed and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing on
     Appellant’s Nunc Pro Tunc Motion where the court failed to abide
     by the juvenile court’s procedural requirements under Pa.R.J.C.P.
     625 and 628, to wit:

        (a) the court did not follow the relevant procedures for
        dismissing a juvenile’s motion for nunc pro tunc relief,
        including failing to either give notice of its proposed
        dismissal of the request for relief, or permit the presentation
        of evidence in support of the request at a hearing; and

        (b) the court did not state findings of fact and conclusions
        of law either in court or in writing to support its dismissal of
        the motion.

                                     -5-
J-A19030-23

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

      We first note that

      [a] juvenile judged to be delinquent has a right to appeal.
      Interest of A.P., [617 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 1992)].
      Furthermore, a juvenile has the right to effective assistance of
      counsel on appeal. Id.; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6337. This right includes,
      at a minimum, the right to have counsel properly preserve and
      effectuate his appeal. Interest of A.P., 617 A.2d 764.

In re B.S., 831 A.2d 151, 155 (Pa. Super. 2003). We reiterate that

      [c]ounsel is presumed effective and the burden of proving
      otherwise lies with the appellant.          Commonwealth v.
      Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724 A.2d 326 (1999).            In order to
      successfully demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, the
      petitioner must establish: (1) the underlying claim is of arguable
      merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her
      action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of
      counsel, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the
      proceedings would have been different. Commonwealth v.
      Miller, 560 Pa. 500, 746 A.2d 592 (2000).

In re R.S., 847 A.2d 685, 687-88 (Pa. Super. 2004).

      Appellant has framed his first issue to encompass (1) withdrawal of his

admission on the Sexual Assault charge and (2) the grant of a new hearing

regarding the July 11, 2022 dispositional order. However, we shall limit our

analysis to the second aspect of his stated issue, i.e., whether the juvenile

court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc

relief in light of Appellant’s assertion of Private Counsel’s ineffectiveness for

failing to seek reconsideration of, or an appeal from, Appellant’s February 9,

2022 delinquency adjudication.

                                      -6-
J-A19030-23

         In its opinion, the juvenile court explained its basis for concluding that

Appellant’s nunc pro tunc motion was untimely. The juvenile court attributed

knowledge of Appellant’s delinquency adjudication to the Public Defender prior

to April 22, 2022, when the Public Defender was first appointed to represent

Appellant in this matter. Because the Public Defender represented Appellant

on his “adult matter” beginning in January 2022, the court stated that it was

“reasonable for the trial court to infer that the Public Defender knew, or should

have known, . . . since March 15, 2022, that an alleged error may have

occurred.” Opinion, 12/1/22, at 8.

         As the Commonwealth appropriately observes:

         [T]he court suggested that the motion was untimely under Rule
         622(A) because [Appellant] did not challenge his prior counsel’s
         performance within sixty days of when prior counsel had ceased
         to represent him. In this regard, the court emphasized that an
         attorney for the Defender Association was present at the hearing
         in March of 2022 at which prior counsel failed to appear. But the
         Defender Association attorney did not speak or play any
         substantive role in that proceeding. Nor would he have had
         occasion at the time to undertake an investigation of prior
         counsel’s overall performance. Moreover, within sixty days of
         being appointed counsel in April 2022, he duly filed the motion
         nunc pro tunc. Therefore, that motion was properly before the
         court below.

Commonwealth Brief at 11 (citations omitted). We agree. We find that the

juvenile court abused its discretion by rejecting Appellant’s motion as untimely

filed.

         While acknowledging that Appellant’s motion was properly before the

court below, the Commonwealth suggests that the record is lacking in

                                        -7-
J-A19030-23

evidence that Private Counsel did not have any contact with Appellant

following the February 9, 2022 adjudicatory hearing. As the Commonwealth

recognizes:

       It is undisputed that prior counsel did not appear to represent
       [Appellant] at the hearing on March 15, 2022. But that was after
       the time period for filing optional post-dispositional motions, as
       well as a notice of appeal, had already expired. See Pa.R.J.[C.]P.
       620. Thus, at a minimum, a remand is necessary so that
       [Appellant] may present evidence at a hearing that prior counsel
       did not, in fact, consult with him following his adjudicatory hearing
       as he alleges. Additionally, [Appellant] will need to establish that
       he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file post-dispositional
       motions. See Commonwealth v. Reaves, [923 A.2d 1119 (Pa.
       2007)]. That would not be the case if the motions lacked merit or
       would not have resulted in any benefit.

Commonwealth Brief at 12 (footnote omitted).

       We agree with the Commonwealth’s analysis and its proposed

resolution. Therefore, having determined that the juvenile court abused its

discretion by rejecting Appellant’s Motion for Relief Nunc Pro Tunc as untimely,

we remand with instruction to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that

Appellant may present evidence regarding his contact, or lack thereof, with

Private Counsel following the February 9, 2022 adjudicatory hearing. In the

event the court determines that Private Counsel was ineffective, and that

Appellant suffered prejudice as a result, the court shall reinstate Appellant’s

post-dispositional rights.4

____________________________________________

4 Having determined that the second element of Appellant’s first issue is
dispositive, we decline to address either the first element of that issue or
Appellant’s second issue.

                                           -8-
J-A19030-23

      Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings in accordance

with our instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 12/12/2023

                                     -9-