Opinion
J-S44044-18 No. 2666 EDA 2017
08-21-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PEDRO FIGUEROA, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 27, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001431-2014 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Pedro Figueroa ("Figueroa") appeals from the Order denying his Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
On January 19, 2014, Figueroa was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance ("PWID"). Joseph Coleman, Esquire ("Attorney Coleman"), of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, represented Figueroa. The charges resulted from a police officer's controlled purchase of two packets of heroin and two packets of cocaine from Figueroa. Figueroa filed a pre-trial suppression Motion, which the trial court denied. Following a bench trial, the trial court acquitted Figueroa of PWID, but found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Figueroa to 9-23 months in prison, with immediate parole after serving nine months, followed by one year of reporting probation. Figueroa filed no direct appeal from his judgment of sentence.
See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30).
Figueroa filed a pro se PCRA Petition on May 17, 2016. Counsel was appointed, who filed an Amended PCRA Petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied Figueroa's PCRA Petition. Subsequently, Figueroa filed the instant timely appeal.
Figueroa presents the following issue for our review:
Is [Figueroa] entitled to reinstatement of his appeal rights nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence because [Attorney Coleman] was ineffective when [he] failed to discuss with [Figueroa] the advantages and disadvantages of appealing the judgment of sentence[,] when there was a non-frivolous appealable issue that was raised in the trial court[,] which was the legality and constitutionality of [Figueroa's] arrest?Brief for Appellant at 2.
Figueroa first claims that the PCRA court improperly denied reinstating his direct appeal rights. Id. at 6. According to Figueroa, Attorney Coleman rendered ineffective assistance by not discussing with him an appeal issue regarding the denial of his suppression Motion. Id. Specifically, Figueroa argues that the suppression issue "was non-frivolous[,] and even the trial court thought the police officer was mistaken because no buy money or heroin was found on [Figueroa] at the time of the arrest." Id. Figueroa asserts that the issue was preserved before trial; if Attorney Coleman had discussed the issue after trial, he would have directed counsel to file a direct appeal; and counsel's inaction caused him to lose his right to challenge the legality and constitutionality of his arrest on appeal. Id.
In its Opinion, the PCRA court set forth the appropriate law, addressed Figueroa's claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/17, at 2-3 (setting forth the facts underlying Figueroa's claim), 3-4 (addressing Figueroa's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm on this basis regarding Figueroa's claim. See id.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/21/18
Image materials not available for display.