Commonwealth v. Davis

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a pro se post-conviction petition could not be summarily dismissed without determining the petitioner’s indigency and whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel in prior proceedings. The court reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for those determinations and further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A pro se post-conviction petition may not be summarily dismissed when prior proceedings involving the same issues were uncounseled, unless the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel.
2. Before summarily dismissing the petition, the PCRA court must determine whether the petitioner is indigent and, if relevant, whether the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel in the prior proceeding.
3. If the petitioner is indigent and did not knowingly and voluntarily waive counsel in the prior proceeding, the PCRA court must appoint new counsel to assist with the petition; if the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel, the issues in the current petition are deemed waived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the PCRA court could summarily dismiss a pro se post-conviction petition when the appellant's prior post-conviction proceedings were uncounseled.
2. Whether the PCRA court was required to determine the appellant's indigency and whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel before summarily dismissing the petition.
3. What procedure should apply on remand if the appellant was indigent and had not knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded