Summary
In Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 18 A.3d 1095 (Pa. 2011), in a concurring statement joined by a majority of the Justices of our Supreme Court, Justice Baer felt compelled to comment on why he believed recusal of the trial judge was necessary.
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. SpanierOpinion
No. 585 CAP.
Submitted: December 2, 2009.
April 28, 2011.
Appeal from the Order entered on 04/02/2009 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Philadelphia County at No. CP-51-CR-0705371-1999.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day April, 2011, after review, we find that the PCRA court's 10 page opinion provides an insufficient basis for our review, and further find that the PCRA court erred by denying a request for her recusal. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the PCRA court for appointment of a new PCRA judge who shall prepare a fully developed opinion on all of the parties' claims, and may hold an evidentiary hearing or grant any other relief deemed necessary.
The Commonwealth's Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication, is granted.
Appellant has filed a letter indicating he does not oppose the Commonwealth's Motion.
Jurisdiction relinquished; case remanded.
Chief Justice CASTILLE and Mesdames Justice Todd and Orie Melvin join the per curiam order.
Mr. Justice Baer files a concurring statement in which Mr. Justice McCaffery and Madame Justice Orie Melvin join.
Mr. Justice Saylor files a concurring and dissenting statement.