Opinion
J. S93005/16 No. 2382 EDA 2015
02-28-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. OMAR RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004319-2009 BEFORE: DUBOW, SOLANO, AND PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Retired Senior Judge Assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Omar Rodriguez, appeals from the July 10, 2015 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying his first Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's March 1, 2016 Opinion.
On September 22, 2010, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to Third-Degree Murder and Possession of an Instrument of Crime after confessing to police officers that he killed a man by stabbing him over twenty times in the head and neck with a knife. On the same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of twenty to forty years' incarceration. Appellant did not appeal this sentence.
On September 22, 2011, Appellant filed the instant timely pro se PCRA Petition, his first, later amended by appointed counsel, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of plea counsel.
After providing Notice to Appellant pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant's Petition without a hearing on July 10, 2015. Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
Appellant presents the following issue for our review: "Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fully explain the charges to which he was [sic] pleaded guilty to, the sentence that he would receive and other collateral effects of his plea." Appellant's Brief at 5.
We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record supports the PCRA court's findings and whether its Order is otherwise free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears , 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if they are supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa. Super. 2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court's legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012).
To be eligible for relief pursuant to the PCRA, Appellant must establish, inter alia, that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2). Appellant must also establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). There is no right to a PCRA hearing; a hearing is unnecessary where the PCRA court can determine from the record that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Commonwealth v. Jones , 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008).
In the instant case, Appellant avers that plea counsel was ineffective. See Appellant's Brief at 5. This claim lacks merit.
The law presumes counsel has rendered effective assistance. Commonwealth v. Rivera , 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2010). The burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on Appellant. Id. To satisfy this burden, Appellant must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: "(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests; and (3) but for counsel's ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the challenged proceeding would have been different." Commonwealth v. Fulton , 830 A.2d 567, 572 (Pa. 2003). Failure to satisfy any prong of the test will result in rejection of the appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Commonwealth v. Jones , 811 A.2d 994, 1002 (Pa. 2002). Further, "[a]llegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused [A]ppellant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea." Fears , supra at 806-807 (citation omitted).
The Honorable Steven R. Geroff, sitting as both the trial court and the PCRA court, has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing to the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellant's ineffectiveness claims. The record supports the PCRA court's findings and its Order is otherwise free of legal error. We affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's March 1, 2016 Opinion which concluded that the underlying claim is without merit because: (1) Appellant acknowledged on the record that he would receive twenty to forty years' incarceration as a result of his negotiated guilty plea; (2) Appellant acknowledged on the record that he was not induced or coerced into pleading guilty; (3) Appellant acknowledged on the record that he was satisfied with the representation of his attorney; and (4) the totality of the circumstances surrounding Appellant's plea demonstrate that it was knowingly and voluntarily entered. See PCRA Court Opinion, 3/1/16, at 2-4, 7-9.
The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA court's March 1, 2016 Opinion to all future filings.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/28/2017
Image materials not available for display.