Com. v. Quiles (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J. S03042/12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JOSE QUILES, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1527 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 26, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal No(s).: CP-23-CR-0005478-2009 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: Filed: February 25, 2013 Appellant, Jose Quiles, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas following his convictions for theft by unlawful taking1 and possession of drug paraphernalia.2 This case returns to us after we remanded on June 21, 2012, to have the trial court conduct a Grazier3 hearing within thirty days. The Grazier hearing occurred on October 18, 2012, and this Court received the transcript of that hearing on January 5, 2013. We again remand to the Honorable Michael F. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921. 2 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(32). 3 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). J. S03042/12 X. Coll for a proper Grazier hearing to be held within thirty days. We further order that Appellant s counsel be present for the Grazier hearing. We set forth the procedural history in our prior memorandum.4 Following our June 21, 2012 remand, on October 18, 2012, the trial court after a delay of almost four months held a Grazier hearing. Although this Court denied Appellant s counsel s petition to withdraw, counsel was inexplicably not present at the Grazier hearing. Further, at the hearing, Appellant indicated that he wished to withdraw the instant appeal. Thus, the trial court did not comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 121(A) and Grazier. Because of the atypical procedural posture, however, as set forth in our prior memorandum, we again remand for a Grazier hearing to determine whether Appellant wishes to proceed pro se on appeal. Should he elect to proceed pro se, he may request this Court to withdraw his appeal. Should he opt to be represented by counsel, Appellant s counsel may ask this Court to withdraw his appeal. The trial court is instructed to ensure that counsel for Appellant is present at the Grazier hearing and that a transcript of that hearing be prepared forthwith and transmitted to this Court. Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction retained. 4 The certified record presently includes the June 15, 2011 order instructing Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
