HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-SA-0159-2006
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.:
:
NEIL R. HALL : NO. CP-21-SA-0159 – 2006
:
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., August , 2007
The defendant was charged with driving under suspension in violation of Section
1
1543 (a) of the Motor Vehicle Code. Because of several prior violations he faced the
2
possibility of incarceration if convicted. As a result, he was represented by the public
defender’s office.
On March 20, 2007 we found the defendant guilty as charged. We directed that a
presentence report be prepared. On May 1, 2007 we sentenced him to pay the cost of
prosecution plus the mandatory minimum fine of $200. Since he was no longer subject to
incarceration, and since he was obviously unhappy with his attorney, we vacated the
3
appointment of the public defender. The defendant has since filed this timely pro se
appeal.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 (b) we directed the
defendant to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. What he
1
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1543 (a).
2
75 Pa. C.S.A. § 6503.
3
The defendant contends that he asked us to discharge the public defender and to appoint other counsel
before we imposed sentence. The record clearly indicates otherwise. We did not vacate the appointment of
the public defender until after sentence was imposed. Because the sentence did not include incarceration
we did not grant his request to appoint other counsel. See Pa. Rule of Criminal Procedure 122 (A) (1) and
(C).
filed was far from concise. However, it appears that virtually all of his complaints
revolve around the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. The applicable law
governing ineffective assistance of counsel is as follows:
To prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective, defendant must demonstrate
that (1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel’s course of conduct
was without a reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interest; and (3) that he
was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness, i.e. [,] if not for counsel’s
ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial
would have been different. Counsel is presumed effective and Appellant has the
burden to prove otherwise.
Commonwealth v. Bess, 789 A.2d 757, 762 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citations omitted).
4
In the instant case, we were not asked to rule upon counsel’s effectiveness.
Furthermore, without an evidentiary hearing we would not be in a position to determine
whether any of his numerous allegations of ineffectiveness have merit.
___________________ ________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
Michelle Sibert, Esquire
Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire
:sld
4
We note that the defendant and counsel had some differences of opinion on how the case would be
handled. Early on in the proceedings the defendant asked to address the Court directly. We allowed him to
do so for a brief period of time before the following exchange took place:
THE COURT: Hold on, sir. Do you want to be represented by counsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I think that would be a good idea, but I would really like to have
my two witnesses here.
THE COURT: Then I’m done talking with you. Mr. Clawges do the two witnesses
affect the suppression hearing?
See Transcript of Proceedings, February 27, 2007, p.6. Thereafter, we dealt with counsel, rather than the
defendant.