Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout641 MDA 2000COMMONWEALTH VS. ROBERT LEE STOTT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (C.P. CUMBERLAND CO. NO. 97-1577) 641 MDA 2000 IN RE: WAIVER OF COUNSEL DETERMINATION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before this court on direction of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Mr. Stott is currently incarcerated on sentences of life imprisonment for the murder of his wife and one of her co-workers. He was denied post-conviction relief by this court and has appealed. Mr. Stott has filed a suggestion with the Superior Court to the effect that he wishes his counsel, Erika P. Kreisman, to withdraw and, further, that he intends to proceed pro se. Accordingly, Ms. Kreisman has filed a motion to withdraw as Mr. Stott's counsel. This matter was referred to us with a direction to conduct an on-the-record inquiry as to whether the appellant's waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary, pursuant to Com. v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988). Our colloquy with the defendant was conducted by way of video conferencing between the Cumberland County Court House and S.C.I. Pittsburgh. A copy of the transcript of said proceeding is attached hereto. We are satisfied that if Mr. Stott chooses to proceed pro se, in this matter, his waiver of counsel would not be knowing, intelligent or voluntary. Mr. Stott is of limited education. N.T. 4. He really has very little idea of the efforts which Ms. Kreisman has made on his behalf. N.T. 6-7. He does not understand the next procedural step in his appeal. N.T. 13. IN fact, he is under the impression that the Superior Court will conduct some sort of independent investigation of his situation. N.T. 14. He seems to only vaguely understand the arguments which counsel have 641 MDA 2000 made on his behalf; namely, that his psychological/psychiatric defense was not properly presented at the time of his trial. We are able to glean, after reading between the lines of his testimony, that the defendant blames his murderous behavior on prozac, a drug which he, presumably, was taking at the time of the killings. He believes that he can litigate that matter on appeal. It is clear from the colloquy that Mr. Stott not only cannot but does not want to represent himself. Instead, like a modern day Diogenes, he is in search of an "honest and truthful" lawyer wherever one can be found. N.T. 15. Mr. Stott, however, already has such an attorney but lacks the insight to understand that. In conclusion, we are satisfied that Mr. Stott is not capable of representing himself. His current counsel should be permitted to finish the work she has begun. ORDER AND NOW, this day of September, 2003, the determination of this court is that the defendant is not capable of a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel. It is, accordingly, the recommendation of this court to the Superior Court that the motion ofErika P. Kreisman, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel, be denied. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. 2 641 MDA 2000 Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Erika P. Kreisman, Esquire 1034 Fifth Avenue Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Court Administrator :rlm 3 COMMONWEALTH VS. ROBERT LEE STOTT INRE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (C.P. CUMBERLAND CO. NO. 97-1577) 641 MDA 2000 WAIVER OF COUNSEL DETERMINATION ORDER AND NOW, this day of September, 2003, the determination of this court is that the defendant is not capable of a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel. It is, accordingly, the recommendation of this court to the Superior Court that the motion ofErika P. Kreisman, Esquire, to withdraw as counsel, be denied. BY THE COURT, Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Erika P. Kreisman, Esquire 1034 Fifth Avenue Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Court Administrator :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.