Opinion
J-S38021-16 No. 2970 EDA 2015
06-14-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ELIZABETH COLLAZO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order of September 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001202-2012 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND JENKINS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Elizabeth Collazo, appeals from the order entered on September 17, 2015, which dismissed her petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court has well explained the facts and procedural posture underlying this appeal:
In the early morning hours of March 15, 2012, [Appellant], the estranged "common law wife" of the victim, Mark W. Werkheiser, entered [Werkheiser's] residence at 850 Browns Drive, [in Easton, Pennsylvania,] using a set of keys she had in her possession, knowing that she was not privileged to be there. [Appellant] proceeded to the second floor of the residence, passed by her sleeping children and entered Werkheiser's bedroom. Then, using a Springfield .40 caliber handgun owned by Werkheiser and taken from the trunk of his Lexus, [Appellant] fired six shots into a defenseless Werkheiser's neck and upper torso. [Appellant] then left the father of her four children's "bullet ridden body lying on the bed partially under the covers" where he was discovered by one of their twin daughters. . . .
The police investigation into this murder revealed that the day before the killing, [Appellant] took the murder weapon to Walmart on Route 248 in Lower Nazareth Township, where she worked, and asked a co-worker how to load the weapon which she was carrying in her purse. [Appellant's] co-worker, Thomas Kale[,] told authorities that he was unaware of what [Appellant] planned to do with the weapon; however, he loaded four .40 caliber Smith & Wesson rounds into the magazine after which [Appellant] returned the handgun to her purse and left the store.
[Appellant] was subsequently charged with [criminal homicide, burglary, and theft by unlawful taking]. On December 31, 2012, [Appellant] appeared before the Honorable Edward G. Smith and entered a negotiated guilty plea to first-degree murder. [Appellant] executed a guilty plea statement (colloquy), written agreement colloquy, and an oral guilty plea colloquy was conducted on the record. The written agreement colloquy contained a waiver of [Appellant's appeal and] post-conviction rights. Judge Smith found [Appellant's] plea "to be knowing and voluntary" after which he accepted the plea. [That same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve] . . . a term of life imprisonment without parole. . . .
On January 28, 2014, [Appellant] filed the instant[, timely] PCRA petition. . . . On July 31, 2015, [Appellant] appeared with PCRA counsel . . . for a PCRA hearing. At the time of the PCRA hearing, PCRA counsel represented to [the PCRA] court that the only issues they were proceeding [with were] the ineffectiveness of counsel claims relat[ing] to the "Battered Woman's Syndrome." Specifically[, that] counsel "failed to employ and call an expert witness in regards to Battered Woman's Syndrome" and its effect on [Appellant] and that counsel "failed to properly advise [Appellant] on the law of Battered Woman's Syndrome" and how it relate[d] to the defenses of self-defense and imperfect self-defense.[] The only witness called by [Appellant] in support of her PCRA petition was trial counsel, James M. Connell,
Esquire. Attorney Connell's testimony did not support any of [Appellant's] claims. Interestingly, [Appellant] elected not to take the stand in support of the bald claims set forth in her PCRA petition.PCRA Court Opinion, 9/17/15, at 1-4 (internal citations and some internal capitalization omitted).
On September 17, 2015, the PCRA court denied Appellant post-conviction collateral relief. As the PCRA court cogently explained in its contemporaneously filed opinion, Appellant had validly waived her post-conviction rights and, even if Appellant had not waived her post-conviction rights, Appellant's claims failed on the merits. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/17/15, at 1-12.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now raises one claim:
Whether the [PCRA] court committed legal error by denying Appellant's PCRA claim because counsel failed to fully inform [Appellant] of her defenses and therefore neither the waiver of rights [nor] the plea could be knowing and voluntary?Appellant's Brief at 4 (some internal capitalization omitted).
We reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the thorough opinion of the able PCRA court judge, the Honorable Stephen G. Baratta. We conclude that there has been no error in this case and that Judge Baratta's opinion, entered on September 17, 2015, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Baratta's opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/14/2016
Image materials not available for display.