Court Opinion

ID: 9395778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:11:31.876062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.158609
License: Public Domain

J-A03044-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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. 726 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 21, 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.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                                    FILED MAY 18, 2023

        Appellant, Vamsidhar Vurimindi, appeals from the order entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his pro se motion

for removal of counsel. We quash the appeal.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.

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 dismissed

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

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709.1(a)(1) and 5503(a)(4), respectively.
J-A03044-23

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 petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. The court appointed counsel, who filed amended

petitions on June 11, 2020 and March 10, 2021. Appellant, however, 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

the stay, Appellant filed a pro se motion for removal of counsel on November

20, 2021. In it, Appellant reiterated his “dissatisfaction and lack of faith” in

PCRA counsel. (Motion, filed 11/20/21, at 14). The court conducted a hearing

on the matter on December 21, 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

court denied Appellant’s motion. That same day, Appellant filed the current,

pro se notice of appeal. Thereafter, PCRA counsel filed an appellate brief on

Appellant’s behalf.

                                     -2-
J-A03044-23

      Appellant now raises one issue for this Court’s review:

         Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by denying
         Appellant’s motion to remove court-appointed counsel,
         despite presentation of compelling evidence to establish
         irreconcilable differences between Appellant and counsel
         that preclude counsel from representing him.

(Appellant’s Brief at 7).

      As a prefatory matter, we emphasize that “[o]nce an appeal is filed, a

[PCRA] court has no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter, absent

limited exceptions[.]” Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13, 17 (Pa.Super.

2020). Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701 governs the effect of

a notice of appeal as follows:

         Rule 1701. Effect of Appeal Generally

            (a) General rule.—Except as otherwise prescribed by
         these rules, after an appeal is taken or review of a
         quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or other
         government unit may no longer proceed further in the
         matter.

           (b) Authority of a trial court or other government
         unit after appeal.—After an appeal is taken or review of a
         quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or other
         government unit may:

             (1) Take such action as may be necessary to preserve
         the status quo, correct formal errors in papers relating to
         the matter, cause the record to be transcribed, approved,
         filed, and transmitted, grant leave to appeal in forma
         pauperis, grant supersedeas, and take other action
         permitted or required by these rules or otherwise ancillary
         to the appeal or petition for review proceeding.

            (2) Enforce any order entered in the matter, unless the
         effect of the order has been superseded as prescribed in this
         chapter.

                                     -3-
J-A03044-23

           (3) Grant reconsideration of the order which is the
        subject of the appeal or petition[.]

                                 *    *    *

           (4) Authorize the taking of depositions or the
        preservation of testimony where required in the interest of
        justice.

          (5) Take any action directed or authorized by an
        appellate court.

           (6) Proceed further in any matter in which a non-
        appealable interlocutory order has been entered,
        notwithstanding the filing of a notice of appeal or a petition
        for review of the order.

            (c) Limited to matters in dispute.—Where only a
        particular item, claim, or assessment adjudged in the matter
        is involved in an appeal, or in a petition for review
        proceeding relating to a quasijudicial order, the appeal or
        petition for review proceeding shall operate to prevent the
        trial court or other government unit from proceeding further
        with only such item, claim, or assessment, unless otherwise
        ordered by the trial court or other government unit or by
        the appellate court or a judge thereof as necessary to
        preserve the rights of the appellant.

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a)-(c).

     Instantly, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to accept and dispose of

Appellant’s pro se motion for removal of counsel while his appeal of a related

issue remained pending at 1886 EDA 2021.          See Smith, supra.       The

exceptions set forth in Rule 1701 are not applicable. Thus, Appellant’s pro se

motion for removal of counsel, as well as the PCRA court’s order denying it,

were both legal nullities.   See id. (explaining that filing in PCRA court

amounted to legal nullity where appellant submitted it while prior appeal

                                     -4-
J-A03044-23

remained pending). As such, we quash this appeal.

      Appeal quashed.

      Judge Sullivan joins this memorandum.

      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

                                     -5-