Commonwealth v. Turner
518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Pennsylvania, the procedure for court-appointed counsel to withdraw from a collateral post-conviction proceeding deemed to be frivolous does not require adherence to the strict requirements of Anders v. California. Instead, counsel may withdraw after determining the issues are meritless and notifying the court, provided the court conducts its own independent review and concurs with counsel's assessment.
Facts:
- Geary Turner was convicted of second-degree murder.
- After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and federal habeas corpus relief was denied, Turner was released on parole.
- Turner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA).
- Turner failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on his first PCHA petition.
- Turner later filed a second PCHA petition.
- The seventh court-appointed attorney assigned to Turner's case concluded that the second PCHA petition was frivolous.
- The eighth court-appointed attorney, assigned for the appeal of the denial of the second petition, also concluded the appeal was frivolous and sought to withdraw.
Procedural Posture:
- Geary Turner was convicted of second-degree murder in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- Turner’s petition for federal habeas corpus was denied by the U.S. District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- Turner filed a pro se Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA) petition in the Court of Common Pleas, which was dismissed after he failed to appear at a hearing.
- An untimely appeal from the dismissal was quashed by the Superior Court.
- Turner then filed a second PCHA petition in the Court of Common Pleas.
- The PCHA court denied the second petition without a hearing, agreeing with counsel that it was frivolous.
- Turner appealed the denial to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCHA court's denial of the petition and granted appellate counsel's request to withdraw.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted appeal to clarify the procedures for counsel's withdrawal in PCHA cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the procedure for court-appointed counsel to withdraw from a direct appeal, as established in Anders v. California, also apply to counsel seeking to withdraw from a collateral post-conviction proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaherty, Justice
No. The procedure for withdrawing from a direct appeal does not apply to a collateral post-conviction proceeding. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Finley established that the federal constitutional right to counsel, which underpins the stringent Anders procedures for direct appeals, does not extend to collateral attacks on criminal convictions. While Pennsylvania law provides a right to counsel in PCHA proceedings via court rule, this right is not of federal constitutional dimension and is adequately protected by a less cumbersome process. The proper procedure permits counsel to withdraw when, in their professional judgment, the PCHA claims are meritless, and the PCHA court independently reviews the record and concurs with that assessment.
Analysis:
This decision formally distinguishes the procedural requirements for counsel in direct appeals versus collateral post-conviction proceedings in Pennsylvania. By adopting the less rigid standard from Pennsylvania v. Finley, the court makes it easier for appointed counsel to withdraw from cases they deem frivolous, thereby conserving judicial and legal resources. The ruling clarifies that the state-provided right to counsel in PCHA matters does not carry the same robust procedural protections as the constitutionally-mandated right to counsel on a first direct appeal. This sets a clear precedent that will streamline the handling of non-meritorious post-conviction petitions.
