Opinion
No. 767 CAP
05-18-2020
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Paul Gamboa TAYLOR, Appellant
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW , this 18th day of May, 2020, The Application for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED BY OPERATION OF LAW, the participating Justices being equally divided on the Application.
Justice Wecht files a dissenting statement in which Justice Donohue joins.
Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Baer and Todd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
JUSTICE WECHT, dissenting
The four participating Justices are equally divided on Paul Gamboa Taylor's application for reconsideration. Accordingly, by default, the application is denied by operation of law, having failed to garner a majority. See Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures § 4(C)(2) ("A vote of the majority is required to grant reconsideration.").
The denial is inexplicable, given that our decision in Commonwealth v. Koehler , ––– Pa. ––––, 229 A.3d 915 (Pa. April 24, 2020), dictates reconsideration of our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Taylor , ––– Pa. ––––, 218 A.3d 1275 (2019), which affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas by operation of law, as the votes among the participating Justices were equally divided. In Koehler , a majority of this Court held that a post-conviction court has the authority to grant a new appeal to this Court if warranted, and that this Court could decide this dispositive issue. These are the same issues that ended in a deadlock in Taylor . Plainly and unavoidably, Koehler establishes that the lower court in Taylor was legally incorrect in holding that it lacked the authority to grant a new appeal to this Court if warranted.
The default denial of Taylor's application by virtue of today's deadlock violates precedent and disregards binding law. I dissent.
Justice Donohue joins this dissenting statement.
See Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 -46.