Justice ORIE MELVIN.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court, which vacated the order of the PCRA
On October 1, 2001, following a bench trial, Appellee was found guilty of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of minors for repeated sexual assaults against an eight-year-old boy. Appellee was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years, with consecutive terms of probation of seven and five years. On direct appeal, Appellee, who was represented by new counsel, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and trial counsel's effectiveness in failing to move to dismiss the charges due to pre-arrest delay. The Superior Court affirmed in a published opinion filed on February 24, 2003, and this Court denied allocatur on September 3, 2003. Commonwealth v. Jette, 818 A.2d 533 (Pa.Super.2003), appeal denied, 574 Pa. 771, 833 A.2d 141 (2003).
Appellee filed an appeal with the Superior Court, and counsel filed a brief on Appellee's behalf asserting that the PCRA court erred in failing to find that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the victim's "My Life" testimony. Counsel chose not to pursue the other four issues presented to the PCRA court and addressed in its opinion. Appellee then filed a pro se petition for remand raising PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness for not pursuing all of the issues Appellee wished to have reviewed on appeal. The Superior Court denied the pro se petition but directed counsel to file a petition for remand responding to Appellee's ineffectiveness claims pursuant to the procedure outlined in Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 408 Pa.Super. 9, 596 A.2d 165 (1991) and Commonwealth v. Battle, 879 A.2d 266 (Pa.Super.2005) ("Battle procedure"). Counsel subsequently complied by filing a motion to remand for the appointment of new counsel. In a published opinion, the Superior Court directed counsel to "prepare a proper and thorough petition for remand" and "to include in the certified record all of the PCRA petitions filed in this case." Commonwealth v. Jette, 947 A.2d 202, 206 (Pa.Super.2008). After counsel complied with these directives, the Superior Court followed its Battle procedure and reviewed counsel's analysis of Appellee's claims of trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness to determine "whether [PCRA] counsel properly found these claims to be frivolous." Commonwealth v. Jette, No. 2834 EDA 2006, unpublished
Id., Mem Op. ¶ 17 at 11. This Court's grant of the Commonwealth's petition for allowance of appeal followed.
The Commonwealth argues that the Superior Court's Battle procedure should be abolished because it requires counsel to "litigate against his client in a contest to be decided by the appellate court, in an effort to establish that the claims preferred by the client are frivolous." Commonwealth's brief at 9. Furthermore, the Commonwealth contends that the procedure impinges upon counsel's exercise of his professional judgment and "demands inferior appellate advocacy" by requiring counsel to "raise all the non-frivolous issues proposed by the defendant or be removed from the case by the Superior Court." Id.
The Commonwealth further asserts that the Superior Court's Battle procedure contravenes this Court's holding in Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993) ("Ellis II"), where we held, as a matter of constitutional law and under our supervisory authority, that "there is no right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal." Commonwealth's brief at 12. The Commonwealth maintains that in precluding hybrid representation, this Court made clear that a represented defendant on appeal has only two options: "(1) waive counsel and proceed pro se; or (2) proceed with appellate counsel and, if warranted, raise appellate counsel's supposed ineffectiveness at a later date. But `the [one] thing he may not do' is raise his own appellate claims while still represented by counsel." Id. at 13 (quoting Ellis II, 626 A.2d at 1141). The Commonwealth posits that the Superior Court's subsequent decision in Battle misinterpreted the scope of the holding in Ellis II as offering support for the proposition that whenever a defendant alleges ineffectiveness of appellate counsel on appeal, said counsel is required to petition the appellate court for remand. The Commonwealth submits that Ellis II did not involve claims of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness, as the grant of review was limited to the question of hybrid representation. Significantly, the Commonwealth notes that the Superior Court's misinterpretation is highlighted by this Court's explanation that once appellate counsel has filed a brief, an appellant's right to petition to waive counsel and proceed
In response, Appellee asserts that the Superior Court's decision should be affirmed because it was "entirely consistent with case precedent." Appellee's Brief at 6. Appellee argues that the Superior Court's Battle procedure "expressly prevents [hybrid representation] from occurring while still ensuring the petitioner's constitutional rights" by requiring counsel's analysis of any pro se filings and only permitting the court to consider the pro se filing for the limited purpose of identifying those claims the petitioner desired to have raised. Id. at 8. Further, Appellee contends that the Commonwealth's reliance on Ellis II is misplaced, as it is factually distinguishable. Appellee submits that Ellis II involved a direct appeal, and, thus, Ellis "still had procedures available to him to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel." Id. at 9. Unlike Ellis, Appellee asserts that he "must raise all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at this stage ... or forever waive those claims." Id. Appellee also takes issue with the Commonwealth's assertion that the Battle procedure requires counsel to raise all non-frivolous issues proposed by the defendant or be removed from the case. Rather, Appellee maintains that the Battle procedure simply requires counsel to be able to "articulate a reasonable legal basis for not including the claim(s)." Id. at 11.
The issue in this case presents a question of law; thus, our standard of review is plenary, and our scope of review is de novo. Commonwealth v. King, 595 Pa. 685, 939 A.2d 877, 880 (2007).
After a careful review of the Superior Court's opinion, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we agree with the Commonwealth that the Superior Court has misinterpreted our holding in Ellis II. Consequently, we find that its adoption of the so-called "Battle Procedure" as applied to address pro se claims of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness, while that counsel is still representing the appellant, is in contravention of this Court's long-standing policy that precludes hybrid representation. Commonwealth v. Reid, 537 Pa. 167, 642 A.2d 453, 462 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 904, 115 S.Ct. 268, 130 L.Ed.2d 186 (1994) ("[Appellants in criminal cases possess no constitutional right to hybrid representation, and thus, any pro se briefs that they may file while represented by counsel will not be considered.") (citing Ellis II).
In order to fully understand the background that led to the Superior Court's misinterpretation of Ellis II and subsequent adoption of the Battle procedure,
Id. at 600-01.
Ellis petitioned for allowance of appeal, and this Court granted review limited to the issue of whether the Superior Court is required to review pro se briefs filed by represented appellants. This Court affirmed the refusal to review the pro se briefs noting that the "Superior Court was correct in its determination that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal." Ellis II, 626 A.2d at 1139. After determining that there was no statutory mandate allowing hybrid representation, we addressed Ellis's policy argument that "it is more efficacious, ultimately, to review the pro se briefs than to deny review and be faced later with withdrawal of counsel and ineffectiveness claims." Id. at 1140. In rejecting this argument, we agreed with the emphasis that both the Commonwealth and the Superior Court placed on "the importance of expert, focused appellate advocacy." Id. Consequently, we opined that the options available to a represented appellant are two-fold. Specifically,
Id. at 1141.
Contrary to the Superior Court's holding in Battle, which cites Ellis II as authority for its remand procedure, see Battle, 879 A.2d at 268 ("If the brief alleges ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, counsel is required to petition this Court for remand."), this Court's decision in Ellis II did not authorize, let alone mandate, the filing of a petition for remand seeking the appointment of new counsel whenever a represented appellant alleges ineffectiveness of his current counsel. Rather, the Superior Court mistakenly gleaned such a requirement from its holding in Lawrence, supra, wherein the Superior Court relied upon dicta from its en banc holding in Ellis I and not this Court's subsequent pronouncements in Ellis II. Lawrence was decided on August 8, 1991, while our review of Ellis I was pending. The panel in Lawrence further determined that whenever the appellate court is presented with a petition to remand for the appointment of new appellate counsel in light of appellant's allegation of counsel's ineffectiveness on appeal, "any grant of such a petition must be premised on the McBee standard."
Prior to the resolution of the appeals in Ellis I, Lawrence, and Battle, the Superior Court acknowledged that "when confronted with this issue in the past [it] would not consider the separate briefs of counsel and appellant, but remanded the matter to the trial court to conduct a hearing in order
Additionally, in Commonwealth v. Rogers, 537 Pa. 581, 645 A.2d 223 (1994), we held that a criminal appellant who challenges the effectiveness of his appellate counsel's representation cannot "terminate counsel after the time of counsel's filing of appellate briefs simply because he wishes to file pro se appellate briefs." Id. at 224. We explained our rationale as follows:
Id. (emphasis in original). Accordingly, at least with respect to direct appeals, a remand for the appointment of new counsel was never countenanced.
Furthermore, in Pursell, supra, much like in the instant case, Pursell filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief and sought the appointment of counsel. Appointed counsel then filed an amended PCRA petition, which raised three issues. Pursell sought both to supplement counsel's amended PCRA petition with twenty-seven pro se claims and to have new PCRA counsel appointed. The trial court denied both requests and dismissed the amended PCRA petition without a hearing. Pursell, now acting pro se, appealed the dismissal to this Court,
Our examination of this Court's jurisprudence reveals the consistent expression precluding hybrid representation for all of the reasons initially expressed by the Superior Court in its en banc decision in Ellis I, namely,
Ellis II, 626 A.2d at 1138-39.
Indeed, this case amply reveals the tension the procedure interposes between client and counsel and the inappropriate role the appellate court then plays in refereeing the court-created "battle." The Commonwealth, which finds itself in the unusual position of advocating in defense of the honor, independence, and professionalism of the criminal defense bar, has succinctly and aptly described the difficulties, as created by the Superior Court panel in this case:
Commonwealth's Brief at 8 (Summary of Argument).
In addition to this Court's jurisprudence, our rules of appellate procedure provide that whenever a defendant is represented by an attorney and the defendant files a pro se motion with the court, the filing will not be docketed and will be forwarded to counsel for his consideration. Pa.R.A.P. 3304; 210 Pa.Code Ch. 65 § 65.24. This rule allows counsel to exercise his professional judgment in deciding whether the pro se claims are worthy of presentment to the court.
Furthermore, an indigent criminal defendant does not enjoy the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing. See Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 Pa. 572, 952 A.2d 594, 617 (2008) ("While an indigent is entitled to free counsel, he is not entitled to free counsel of his own choosing.") (quoting Commonwealth v. Chumley, 482 Pa. 626, 394 A.2d 497, 507 n. 3 (1978)).
The Battle procedure clearly has the effect of requiring counsel to file a merits brief of an appellant's pro se claims, even though counsel has rejected inclusion of those claims in the exercise of his professional judgment, which are then reviewed by the court for frivolity. Such a procedure conflicts with the traditional appellate review paradigm by requiring counsel to advance arguments on his client's behalf while simultaneously refuting the validity of issues that the client believes are also worthy of review but counsel chose not to raise. Furthermore, the remedy of appointing new counsel pursuant to successful invocation of the Battle procedure is inapposite to the remedy provided where counsel successfully petitions to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Maple, 385 Pa.Super. 14, 559 A.2d 953, 955 (1989) (where appointed post-conviction counsel has been permitted to withdraw, on the basis of a Turner/Finley letter, "the appointment of second counsel ... is unnecessary and improper."). Consequently, the Battle procedure has the effect of granting greater rights to those petitioners who assert pro se claims of PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness than those petitioners whose counsel successfully withdraw from representation. Finally, the procedure could also engender remands for the appointment of new counsel ad infinitum if the client continues to disagree with subsequent counsel's pursuit of less than all of the issues the client deems meritorious.
The Battle procedure calls to mind the colloquial expression of placing the cart before the horse. The Superior Court's misapprehension of our holding in Ellis II has created a unitary review paradigm that requires it to prematurely acknowledge, at least tacitly, that the issues foregone by counsel provide a more reasonable prospect for success, and counsel, therefore, is ineffective for not pursuing them, when it has yet to determine whether the actual claims advanced by counsel on appeal will provide an appellant with the relief he desires. Clearly, the requisite Strickland
In addition, the Battle procedure, at least as applied by the Superior Court in this case, allows certain petitioners to avoid this Court's restrictions on serial requests for post-conviction relief. See Commonwealth v. Lawson, 519 Pa. 504, 549 A.2d 107, 112 (1988) ("[A] second or any subsequent post-conviction request for relief will not be entertained unless a strong prima facie showing is offered to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred."); see also Commonwealth v. Bond, 572 Pa. 588, 819 A.2d 33, 52 (2002) ("Permitting a PCRA petitioner to append new claims to the appeal already on review would wrongly subvert the time limitation and serial petition restrictions of the PCRA."). Instantly, the Superior Court's order not only granted appointment of new counsel but also directed the collateral review process to begin anew. See Jette, supra at ¶ 17 ("Newly appointed counsel should ... prepare a new, amended PCRA petition raising those claims counsel considers meritorious after a thorough investigation."). Even in those cases where appellate counsel asserts a claim of his own ineffective assistance, we do not remand the case to start over or add new claims. Rather, when remand for the appointment of new counsel is appropriate pursuant to McBee, the court's remand is limited to conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue of appellate counsel's ineffective assistance. See Commonwealth v. Green, 551 Pa. 88, 709 A.2d 382 (1998), Commonwealth v. Ciptak, 542 Pa. 112, 665 A.2d 1161 (1995), and Commonwealth v. Shannon, 530 Pa. 279, 608 A.2d 1020 (1992). Of further significance, at least in this case, is the fact that prior PCRA counsel, Michael P. Marryshow, did present the ineffectiveness of trial counsel claims to the PCRA court that Appellee now wants the Superior Court to review. Thus, even if attorney Marryshow would have been inclined to assert his own ineffectiveness for failing to preserve those claims for further review by the Superior Court, the McBee remedy of appointment of new counsel and remand for an evidentiary hearing would be superfluous as said hearing was already held, and the claims were addressed and rejected by the PCRA court.
Consequently, we find that the Superior Court's fundamental misapprehension of the governing principles this Court laid out in Ellis II, as further exemplified in Rogers and Pursell, necessitates our rejection of its implementation of the so-called Battle procedure. Therefore, we reiterate that the proper response to any pro se pleading is to refer the pleading to counsel, and to take no further action on the pro se pleading unless counsel forwards a motion. Moreover, once the brief has been filed, any right to insist upon self-representation has expired. See Staton, 12 A.3d at 282 (citing Rogers, supra.).
Chief Justice Castille and Justices EAKIN and McCAFFERY join the opinion.
Chief Justice CASTILLE files a fully concurring opinion in which Justice ORIE MELVIN joins.
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring opinion.
Justice BAER files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Justice TODD joins.
Chief Justice CASTILLE, concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion. I write separately to respond to some points forwarded by Mr. Justice Baer in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.
Preliminarily, I note that, if the Superior Court had been choosing an appropriate vehicle, it would have been hard-pressed to find a more aptly named case for the unwieldy procedure the court implemented in Commonwealth v. Battle, 879 A.2d 266 (Pa.Super.2005). As the Majority explains, the procedure obviously cannot stand under: 1) our governing cases such as Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993); 2) a proper understanding of what is encompassed by the right to counsel; 3) a proper understanding of the deference due to counsel; and 4) an appreciation of this Court's more recent cases (which I recognize were decided after the panel issued its decision in this case), addressing whether PCRA
I write to address two points made in Justice Baer's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, with which I respectfully disagree. First, Justice Baer does not agree that the Battle procedure improperly provided petitioners with an additional round of collateral review. Respectfully, in my view, it certainly did.
The PCRA appeal in this case was briefed in the Superior Court and was ready for disposition—until the counseled appellant Jette (appellee here) forwarded his pro se Petition for Remand, as authorized by the Battle procedure. In accordance with Battle, the subject of the Petition was the performance of PCRA appeal counsel, with Jette faulting counsel for failing to indulge Jette's whim to assert additional claims. The Petition was, for all purposes, a serial PCRA petition, focused solely upon PCRA counsel.
Further proof of this fiction is that the case was remanded for new counsel "to investigate" the claims the panel assumed were meritorious and to "prepare a new, amended PCRA petition raising those claims counsel considers meritorious after a thorough investigation." If the mandate comprised mere review of already-asserted claims, the panel could have simply directed the filing of a new brief premised upon the existing record. But, even this goes too far: the reality here is that the claims appellee faulted his lawyer for failing to include may have been asserted in the PCRA court, but they were not asserted on appeal—until the Superior Court, through Battle, inserted itself into the client-counsel relationship and invited the client to file an appellate-level serial PCRA petition attacking his PCRA appeal counsel. In short, the Battle procedure obviously implicates Pitts, Commonwealth v. Liston, 602 Pa. 10, 977 A.2d 1089 (2009), and Colavita, and the Majority rightly rejects the procedure, in part, because of this reality.
Second, Justice Baer would devise a rule allowing the counseled appellant an extra window of thirty days after appellate counsel files a brief on his behalf within which to review the brief and decide whether to proceed pro se. Perhaps this proposed procedure should be called the "Skirmish" rule, to distinguish it from Battle. In any event, I do not support the procedure, which would obviously be in tension with Pitts, Liston and Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa. 103, 971 A.2d 1125 (2009), and would implicate overruling footnote 12 in Colavita. 993 A.2d at 893 n. 12. Those authorities amply explain why we are not obliged to devise ad hoc procedures to allow a represented PCRA petitioner to act upon concerns with the performance of PCRA appeal counsel.
I recognize that if the procedure suggested by Justice Baer were confined to claims that were raised in the PCRA court, but not pursued in counsel's appellate brief, it would be distinguishable from the procedure at issue in Colavita, Pitts, and related cases. But, I do not support adoption of a cumbersome procedure, designed merely to afford criminal defendants on collateral appeal in effect a veto power over the contents of the briefs prepared by their court-appointed attorneys, and a second chance to decide whether to represent themselves. The legal foundation for this
Moreover, even assuming that this Court would one day find an independent basis in law for conferring or recognizing such a right, the decision to proceed with counsel, once made, should not include reservation of a veto power and a power to change one's mind concerning counsel, after counsel has already been put to the task. The procedure inverts the attorney-client relationship. Just as defendants have no "right" to taxpayer-financed counsel of their choice, I see no reason in law or logic to assume they have a right to dictate the issues to be pursued on collateral appeal (or direct appeal for that matter), once counsel is appointed. The proper repository for complaints concerning counsel is the PCRA, and not a cumbersome process once the case is already on appeal and briefed. Furthermore, because the proposed procedure, in essence, would merely provide an end-around the PCRA, I cannot support it.
Justice ORIE MELVIN joins this concurring opinion.
Justice SAYLOR, concurring.
Over the years I have spent on the appellate bench, I have come to see the great emphasis which, of necessity, is placed on the administrative aspect of the administration of justice. Still, it remains troubling that courts shape the review process based on presumptions and pronouncements that are not empirically verified, while sometimes demonstrating limited sensitivity toward other vital interests at stake in criminal justice.
Here, ultimately, I agree with the majority that the balancing of the public and private interests involved justifies restrictions on hybrid and self-representation on appeal. Nevertheless, I remain circumspect about the reasoning supplied on a number of points. For example, I believe courts should continue to reflect on the weight being accorded to the presumption of effectiveness, particularly in light of the demonstrated need for material improvement in the provision of legal services to indigent defendants. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walter, 600 Pa. 392, 397-404, 966 A.2d 560, 563-67 (affirming a capital judgment of sentence, while describing various of the appellant's claims as "unintelligible," underdeveloped, "vague and confusing," waived, "incomprehensible," and "incapable of review"), cert denied ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 743, 175 L.Ed.2d 522 (2009). See generally REPORT OF THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL COMMITTEE, JUSTICE DENIED: AMERICA'S CONTINUING NEGLECT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL (Apr.2009) (embodying the analysis of a bipartisan committee of independent experts representing all segments of the Nation's justice
I also have substantial difficulty with the notion that "appellate counsel is entitled, as a matter of strategy, to forego even meritorious issues in favor of issues he believes pose a greater likelihood of success." Majority Opinion, Op. at 1043. While this may be true in the abstract— assuming that foregone issues are, in fact, materially weaker than those actually litigated in an appeal—doubt is cast on such assumption in instances in which the claims actually advanced by counsel are adjudged to be meritless. To the degree there is difficulty in predicting which issues have the best chance of succeeding before an appellate court, the allocation to lawyers of the ability to forfeit meritorious claims seems highly questionable, at least in the absence of effective client consultation. The fairness of such allocation is particularly debatable in view of the barriers to judicial review of appellate-counsel stewardship, including the strong presumption of effectiveness and statutory and court-imposed limitations placed on the review.
In light of the above, I am sympathetic to the Superior Court's efforts to implement a procedure by which, at least upon a non-frivolous complaint by a criminal defendant, judicial review of claim selection decisions by his appellate counsel is not evaded. Again, however, on balance, I ultimately agree with the majority that the Battle procedure simply is too burdensome.
Justice BAER, concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the Majority's individual mandate, and with its broader decision to reject the Superior Court's Battle procedure. While I have no doubt that procedure was well intentioned, it was also cumbersome and inconsistent with this Court's announcement in Commonwealth v. Ellis, 534 Pa. 176, 626 A.2d 1137 (1993) (Ellis II). Thus, I agree that Battle should be overruled. Respectfully, however, I do not join in the Majority's further criticism that the Battle procedure improperly provided certain petitioners an "additional round" of collateral review.
I now turn to the Majority's proposed solution to the problem of pro se filings by represented PCRA petitioners. The Majority's answer is to import the well-established rules applicable to direct appeals. As the Majority recognizes, courts in Pennsylvania do not countenance hybrid representation. Ellis II, 626 A.2d at 1139. Thus, the rules for proceeding on direct appeal are clear. If an indigent appellant wishes to raise claims different from those that were chosen by his counsel, he must either: (1) file a petition to terminate counsel's services and proceed with the appeal pro se; or (2) accept his counsel's representation, and wait until collateral review to assert his claims of counsel's ineffectiveness indirectly. Id. The first option carries with it a time limitation: an appellant may not terminate counsel's services and proceed pro se if counsel has already filed an appellate brief. Commonwealth v. Rogers, 537 Pa. 581, 645 A.2d 223 (1994). We "drew the line" where we did in Rogers because we believed that it adequately balanced the appellant's interest in self-representation with a broader interest in avoiding confusion and delay. Id. at 224. We justified the limitation by noting that dissatisfied appellants may still turn to collateral relief. Id.
The Majority now imports these same rules, including the Rogers deadline, into the PCRA appeal context. Under the Majority's new pronouncement, the petitioner may proceed pro se on a PCRA appeal at any time before his brief is filed. In my
In light of the restrictions on serial PCRA petitions, and that PCRA petitioners may not even be aware of the issues counsel chooses to advance on appeal until the brief is actually filed, I respectfully suggest that we should extend the deadline for proceeding pro se on appeal to 30 days from the date that the PCRA appellate brief is filed and served. This will allow the petitioner an opportunity to review the brief and decide whether to proceed pro se. If he timely asserts his desire to litigate pro se, the Superior Court would remand for a Grazier hearing and the case would proceed accordingly.
Justice TODD joins this opinion.
Moreover, the scope and continuing viability of the so-called Bomar exception is presently before this Court in Commonwealth v. Holmes, 606 Pa. 209, 996 A.2d 479 (2010), wherein we granted review of the following issues:
Battle, 879 A.2d at 268-69 (footnote omitted).
Furthermore, this Court recently noted in Commonwealth v. Staton, 12 A.3d 277, 280 (Pa.2010), that the "question of entitlement to self-representation on appeal" presents a novel question in Pennsylvania. In Staton, we were asked to address that question in conjunction with a motion to withdraw filed by the appellant's counsel. We found that there was no need to answer the question in order to decide the motion because "we may assume that there is a right to self-representation on appeal in Pennsylvania; yet, even so,... the right, even if deemed constitutionally-based, is not absolute." Id. at 282 (citing Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 551 Pa. 96, 709 A.2d 849 (1998)) (court may refuse request to proceed pro se even at trial phase in order minimize disruptions, avoid inconvenience and delay, maintain continuity and avoid confusing the jury); Commonwealth v. Rogers, 537 Pa. 581, 645 A.2d 223 (1994) (an appellant is not permitted to proceed pro se after counsel had already filed appellate briefs on his behalf). Thus, we denied counsel's request to withdraw so that the appellant could proceed pro se specifically because such procedure would "unnecessarily impede and completely disrupt an already delayed appellate process." Staton, 12 A.3d at 283. The implication of Martinez, as exemplified by Staton, is that, at a minimum, the Court need not be so concerned with the PCRA appellant's personal preferences concerning self-representation as had formerly been assumed.
Accordingly, we find that whatever difficulty exists in presenting claims of ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel, it provides insufficient justification for abandoning our long-standing prohibition of hybrid representation. Moreover, we must give deference to the General Assembly's intent to bring litigation to an end, as reflected by its passage of the 1995 amendments to the PCRA, by its implementation of "a scheme in which PCRA petitions are to be accorded finality." Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 554 Pa. 547, 722 A.2d 638, 642 (1998).
