Court Opinion

ID: 9395779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:11:32.47503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.305640
License: Public Domain

J-A03043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 2232 EDA 2021

               Appeal from the Order Entered September 28, 2021
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008022-2012

BEFORE:      KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM:                                FILED MAY 18, 2023

        Appellant, Vamsidhar Vurimindi, purports to appeal from the order

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which stayed all

proceedings related to his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Because this appeal is duplicative

of an appeal filed at 1886 EDA 2021, we dismiss.

        Following a bench trial, the court convicted Appellant of two counts of

stalking and one count of disorderly conduct.1 On April 25, 2014, the court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of two and one-half (2½) to five

(5) years’ imprisonment, followed by five (5) years of probation. This Court

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709.1(a)(1) and 5503(a)(4), respectively.
J-A03043-23

dismissed Appellant’s direct appeal from the judgment of sentence, and our

Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal on

September 4, 2019.       See Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031

(Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied, 655 Pa. 195, 217 A.3d 793 (2019).

      On December 18, 2019, Appellant commenced collateral review with the

filing of a pro se PCRA petition.    The court appointed counsel, who filed

amended petitions on June 11, 2020 and March 10, 2021.          Despite PCRA

counsel’s efforts, Appellant filed a motion to proceed pro se on July 12, 2021.

On September 20, 2021, the court conducted a hearing to determine whether

Appellant would proceed pro se, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier,

552 Pa. 9, 713 A.2d 81 (1998). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court

denied Appellant’s motion.

      Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his motion,

which this Court docketed at 1886 EDA 2021. On September 28, 2021, the

PCRA court entered an order that stayed the proceedings related to Appellant’s

PCRA petition pending the resolution of the appeal at 1886 EDA 2021. Despite

having counsel of record, Appellant filed the instant, pro se notice of appeal

on October 24, 2021, purporting to appeal from the “September 28, 2021

order denying [Appellant’s request] to proceed pro se[.]” (Notice of Appeal,

filed 10/24/21, at 1). Thereafter, appointed counsel filed an appellate brief

on Appellant’s behalf.

      Although the current notice of appeal claims to challenge the September

                                     -2-
J-A03043-23

28, 2021 order, Appellant’s brief argues that he “has a constitutional right to

proceed pro se,” and he presented the PCRA court with evidence

demonstrating that he “is competent to waive his right to counsel and that he

made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel.”

(Appellant’s Brief at 12). These arguments actually relate to the propriety of

the PCRA court’s September 20, 2021 denial of the motion to proceed pro se,

and we addressed them in disposing of the appeal at 1886 EDA 2021.

Accordingly, we dismiss the current appeal as duplicative.

      Appeal dismissed.

      Judge Sullivan joins this judgment order.

      President   Judge   Emeritus   Stevens   did   not   participate   in   the

consideration or decision of this case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2023

                                     -3-