holding no constitutional right to hybrid representation exists and Superior Court did not err by refusing to review pro se filings of represented ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998) (“When a waiver of the right to counsel is sought at the post-conviction and appellate stages, an on-the-record determination should be made that the waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary one.”). -4- J-S41019-17 appellant
How later courts described this case
- holding no constitutional right to hybrid representation exists and Superior Court did not err by refusing to review pro se filings of represented ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81, 82 (Pa. 1998) (“When a waiver of the right to counsel is sought at the post-conviction and appellate stages, an on-the-record determination should be made that the waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary one.”). -4- J-S41019-17 appellant
- holding there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal and that a defendant may not confuse and overburden the court by filing pro se documents the same time his counsel is filing documents on his behalf
- stating “the number of claims raised in an appeal is usually in inverse proportion to their merit and that a large number of claims raises the presumption that all are invalid”
- providing that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal and that the appellate courts are not required to consider pro se filings or briefs where a defendant is represented by counsel on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Appellate review of legitimate issues of justice should not be precluded because the pro se defendant raises an issue that his attorney did not recognize or did not agree with. Many times, defendants are without the resources necessary to secure the legal representation of their choice, leaving them at the mercy of court appointed attorneys. Moreover, the fact that a defendant raises issues in his or her pro se brief, other than those raised by his or her attorney, cannot mean that the issues are not compelling or valid. To make a blanket statement that such issues are not worthy of appellate review denies these pro se defendants any semblance of justice.
Additionally, this Court now allows criminal attorneys to get away with legal malpractice up to and possibly including reckless and wanton disregard of the defendant’s interest. See Bailey et al. v. Tucker et al., 621 A.2d 108, 114 (1993). With such lax accountability for attorneys representing criminal defendants, any court should welcome pro se briefs.