 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Commonwealth v. Malone4/7/2003
an ineffectiveness claim." Commonwealth v. Kaufmann, 405 Pa.Super. 335, 592 A.2d 691, 695 (Pa. Super. 1991), quoting Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26, 35, 432 A.2d 182, 186 (1981). This Court has admonished, accordingly, that " he point in time at which a trial court may determine that a PCRA petitioner's claims are frivolous or meritless is after the petitioner has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present those claims." [citation omitted]. Our supreme court has recognized that such an opportunity is best assured where the petitioner is provided representation by competent counsel "whose ability to frame the issues in a legally meaningful fashion insures the trial court that all relevant considerations will be brought to its attention." Commonwealth v. Carrier, 494 Pa. 305, 309, 431 A.2d 271, 273 (1981). Commonwealth v. Hampton, 718 A.2d 1250, 1252 (Pa. Super. 1998) (emphasis original).
It is apparent that PCRA counsel did not provide Malone with a meaningful opportunity to obtain review of his underlying issues regarding the performance of plea counsel and an allegedly defective guilty plea colloquy. The original and amended PCRA petitions filed by PCRA counsel failed to "frame the issues in a legally meaningful fashion," Hampton, for consideration by the trial court. Most notably, PCRA counsel failed to comply with the following provision of the PCRA:
Where a petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing, the petition shall include a signed certification as to each intended witness stating the witness's name, address, date of birth and substance of testimony and shall include any documents material to that witness's testimony. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d).
PCRA counsel's unsupported assurance that he would "present the testimony of prior counsel the testimony of Mr. Malone" falls far short of this requirement, especially where, as here, the substance of that testimony would obviously be crucial to resolution of the underlying issues. We can discern no reasonable basis for PCRA counsel's failure to comply with the pleading requirements of the PCRA and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the record before us is limited, we are convinced that, had PCRA counsel complied with those requirements, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. In this case, that outcome would have been the grant of an evidentiary hearing on Malone's claims regarding an allegedly defective plea colloquy and whether plea counsel should have objected to the colloquy or moved to withdraw Malone's plea.
Based upon the foregoing, we are constrained to vacate the order dismissing Malone's PCRA petition and to remand this matter to the PCRA court. Malone, with present counsel, will be entitled to amend his PCRA petition to conform to the Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to said petitions. The PCRA court will then be able to determine if a hearing on the petition is necessary and, if required, hold such a hearing and dispose of the petition.
Order vacated. Case remanded with directions. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|