J-S61026-15
J-S61027-15
2015 PA Super 262
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
BRYAN PERRY, :
:
Appellant : No. 265 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 18, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002139-2011
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
BRYAN PERRY, :
:
Appellee : No. 420 MDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered on February 4, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002139-2011
BEFORE: PANELLA, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:
FILED DECEMBER 14, 2015
For the reasons that follow, I respectfully dissent to the result reached
by the learned Majority at Docket Number 420 MDA 2015 and concur in the
result reached by the learned Majority at Docket Number 265 MDA 2015.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S61026-15
J-S61027-15
As to Docket Number 420 MDA 2015, the PCRA court originally denied
Perry’s PCRA petition in an order entered on May 16, 2014, and Perry
appealed that order. As a result of that appeal, this Court vacated the PCRA
court’s order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. This Court offered
the following discussion in support of our decision:
[]Perry’s claim that [appellate counsel] was ineffective for
failing to raise, on direct appeal, the jury’s receipt of unmarked
evidence cannot be resolved on the certified record. As
recognized by the PCRA court, this issue was not pursued or
addressed at the evidentiary hearing. Our review of the certified
record discloses that [appellate counsel] did not testify at the
evidentiary hearing, and the record is devoid of her response to
Perry’s claim that he had informed her of the jury’s receipt of
unmarked evidence. Nevertheless, the PCRA [c]ourt
acknowledged that this claim was addressed in Perry’s briefs
following the evidentiary hearing.
To enable appellate review, PCRA courts are required to
provide a legally robust discussion, complete with clear findings
of fact where required. A factfinding court should support its
holding with sufficient explanations of the facts and law to
facilitate appellate review. Where a petitioner has presented a
claim to the PCRA court and that court has not addressed it, a
remand is appropriate where the claim cannot be resolved on the
record. [P]articularly in close cases, a developed post-conviction
record accompanied by specific factual findings and legal
conclusions is an essential tool necessary to sharpen the issues.
Thus, we vacate the [o]rder of the PCRA court and remand this
matter to the PCRA court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on
the issue of whether [appellate counsel] rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to raise, on direct appeal, the jury’s receipt
of unmarked evidence.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 917 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Dec. 30, 2014)
(unpublished memorandum at 6-7) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
-2-
J-S61026-15
J-S61027-15
Thus, this Court vacated the PCRA court’s order and remanded the
matter, specifically directing the PCRA court to conduct an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to
raise on direct appeal the issue regarding the jury’s receipt of unmarked
evidence. In my view, this Court’s Memorandum clearly spelled out that
appellate counsel’s testimony was required at the hearing.
At the evidentiary hearing on remand, the PCRA court was
immediately made aware of the fact that appellate counsel was not present
for the hearing because, inter alia, she had a family emergency. At that
point, the PCRA court knew or should have known that it could not comply
with this Court’s instructions. Rather than postponing or continuing the
hearing, the court held a hearing without appellate counsel and granted
Perry relief in the form of reinstatement of his appellate rights.1
Because the PCRA court failed to follow this Court’s directions on
remand, I would vacate the PCRA court’s most recent order and remand the
matter with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing in compliance with this
1
Perry already has had a direct appeal, which resulted in this Court
affirming his judgment of sentence; therefore, this form of relief was
unavailable to him. See Commonwealth v. Grosella, 902 A.2d 1290,
1293-94 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[I]t is also well-settled that the reinstatement
of direct appeal rights is not the proper remedy when appellate counsel
perfected a direct appeal but simply failed to raise certain claims…. In such
circumstances, the appellant must proceed under the auspices of the PCRA,
and the PCRA court should apply the traditional three-prong test for
determining whether appellate counsel was ineffective.”) (footnote omitted).
-3-
J-S61026-15
J-S61027-15
Court’s previous Memorandum.2 Such a result at Docket Number 430 MDA
2015 would render moot Perry’s appeal at Docket Number 265 MDA 2015;
consequently, I too would dismiss that appeal.
2
While the Majority opines that Appellant should not get a “third bite at the
apple,” see Majority at 9 n. 4, based on the foregoing, it is evident that
Appellant has not even had a first bite at the apple.
-4-