Com. v. Houseweart, H. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S19011-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HEATHER K. HOUSEWEART Appellant No. 1760 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA Order September 12, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0001036-2011 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2014 Appellant, Heather K. Houseweart, appeals from the order entered on September 12, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, which dismissed her petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. ยงยง 9541-9546 After careful review, we vacate the order and remand for the appointment of new counsel. It appears, upon a review of the certified record provided to this Court, that Houseweart was chronically unrepresented by appointed counsel, James R. Protasio, Esquire. It is wellentered, the attorney is responsible to diligently and competently represent Commonwealth v. Librizzi, 810 A.2d 692, 693 (Pa. Super. 2002). Furthermore, J-S19011-14 Commonwealth v. Henkel, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 1409107, *6 (Pa. Super., filed April 11, 2014). Here, counsel filed a PCRA petition on April 4, 2013, raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. Following a PCRA conference on June 27, 2013, the PCRA court directed counsel to file an amended PCRA petition on or before August 20, 2013, and to arrange for the preparation of the trial transcripts. See Order, 6/27/13, at 1. Counsel failed to comply with either directive. At the time of the PCRA conference on September 11, 2013, the PCRA court admonished counsel for his complete lack of preparation to proceed on See Order 9/11/13, at 1. The PCRA court -compliance with its order of June 27, 2013, and neffectiveness. PCRA Court Opinion, 10/30/13, at 1. Houseweart subsequently filed in the PCRA court two pro se motions for withdrawal of counsel predicated on ineffectiveness and requested the appointment of new PCRA counsel. Both motions were denied. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the PCRA court stated the following: deprived [Houseweart] of her right to assistance of counsel. Therefore the court expects that the matter will be remanded for the appointment of effective counsel. Id., at 2. -2- J-S19011-14 raised in the PCRA court, we vacate the order dismissing the PCRA petition and remand to the PCRA court for the appointment of new counsel. Order vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/30/2014 -3-
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.
