Opinion
J-S63009-19 No. 2681 EDA 2018
11-27-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MUHAMMAD AL-AMIN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 14, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009246-2010 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Muhammad Al-Amin, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition brought pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally, we add, the record indicates the PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice on August 16, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the PCRA court denied Appellant's PCRA petition. That same day, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant on September 17, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on September 24, 2018.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
DID THE PCRA COURT ERR IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S PCRA PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING BECAUSE TRIAL/DIRECT APPEAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE APPELLANT'S BRUTON V. UNITED STATES [, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968)] ISSUE AT TRIAL AND FOR FAILING TO LITIGATE DENIAL OF THE RELATED SEVERANCE ISSUE ON DIRECT APPEAL?(Appellant's Brief at 4).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court's determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway , 14 A.3d 101, 108 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court's legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). Further, a petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335 (Pa.Super. 2012).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Shelley Robins New, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, filed May 7, 2019, at 3-9) (finding: at trial, court replaced references to Appellant in defendant's statement with "the guy" or "the other guy"; balance of interests weighed in favor of admitting co-defendant's redacted statement into evidence; further, court provided jury appropriate limiting instruction regarding co-defendant's statement; thus, admission of co-defendant's statement did not violate Bruton ; Appellant's claim trial/direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve and litigate issue on appeal fails; further, Appellant's claim counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve for appeal and raise on appeal denial of Appellant's severance motion also fails; nature of facts, content of co-defendant's and Appellant's respective statements, and offenses charged weighed in favor of trying Appellant and co-defendant jointly; Appellant failed to show he suffered undue prejudice from counsel's failure to preserve and appeal severance issue). The record supports the PCRA court's rationale. See Conway , supra. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/27/19
Image materials not available for display.