Opinion
J-S77025-16 No. 498 MDA 2016
01-19-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. SHELDON ANTHONY GOODRIDGE, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order of March 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000448-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Sheldon Anthony Goodridge, appeals from the order entered on March 2, 2016, dismissing his first petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as follows. In December 2013, Appellant engaged in a physical altercation with another patron at a bar in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Specifically Appellant struck the victim with a pool cue and then stabbed him in the neck and back. The victim survived. As a result, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with various criminal charges; however, on July 30, 2014, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for the Commonwealth's withdrawal of the remaining offenses. On October 21, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 90 to 180 months of incarceration, followed by a consecutive term of two years of probation. Appellant did not appeal his judgment of sentence.
On July 31, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who subsequently filed a "no-merit letter" with the PCRA court and petitioned to withdraw from representation pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). On December 2, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se supplemental PCRA petition. On March 2, 2016, the PCRA court granted counsel's petition to withdraw and denied Appellant relief. This timely pro se appeal resulted.
We note that because the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a "no-merit letter" under Turner / Finley , and Appellant responded by filing a pro se PCRA petition, the PCRA court did not summarily dismiss Appellant's PCRA petition. Thus, the PCRA court was not required to give Appellant notice of its intent to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (where "the PCRA court did not summarily dismiss [a PCRA] petition upon initial review, but rather ordered the appointment of counsel, the filing of an amended petition, and the briefing of the legal issues presented. [] Rule 1507(a)[, predecessor of Rule 907(a),] by its own terms, is inapplicable.").
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
I. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to ensure [Appellant's] due process rights were protected under the provisions of the [F]ourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
II. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to ensure [Appellant's] fundamental human rights were protected under the provisions of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?Appellant's Brief at 3-4.
III. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and/or failing to argue that the sentence was against the sufficiency of the evidence?
IV. Was defense counsel ineffective for inducing [Appellant] to plead guilty by giving false information about sentencing?
V. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to zealously assert [Appellant's] position and seek a result advantageous to his client?
VI. Was defense counsel ineffective for abandoning [Appellant] by not filing any post-sentence appeals on behalf of his client?
VII. Did the prosecution fail to introduce any relevant evidence of the extra element of the aggravated offense necessary to constitute the crime charged and sufficient to justify the conviction?
We reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the thorough opinion of the PCRA court entered on May 25, 2016. The PCRA court first noted that Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel amounted to bald contentions. For this reason, the PCRA court could have dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Chmiel , 30 A.3d 1111, 1128 (Pa. 2011) ("boilerplate allegations and bald assertions [] cannot satisfy a petitioner's burden to prove that counsel was ineffective"). Moreover, on appeal, Appellant's argument is equally undeveloped and fails to allege, or even set forth, the three-prong test for counsel ineffectiveness; thus, Appellant has also waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (explaining that an appellant waives issue on appeal where he fails to present the claim with citations to relevant authority or develop the issue in a meaningful fashion capable of review).
Regardless, we conclude that there has been no error in this case and that the PCRA court's opinion meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. Therein, the PCRA court determined that Appellant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily tendered, after he acknowledged his constitutional rights, the factual predicate of this case, and the possible range of sentences in both written and oral colloquies. After reviewing Appellant's supplemental PCRA petition and the certified record, the trial court determined that Appellant pled guilty only after confirming the factual basis for the charges and acknowledging the range of punishments that he faced. These uncontested circumstances defeated any claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or failing to accurately advise Appellant about the potential range of sentences. Moreover, the PCRA court determined that Appellant failed to plead and prove that he requested that counsel file a direct appeal and that counsel heard but ignored or rejected the request. We conclude that there has been no error in this case and that the PCRA court's opinion entered on September 17, 2015, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court'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: 1/19/2017
Image materials not available for display.