Opinion
J-S60002-17 No. 1668 WDA 2016
11-14-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. VERNON JERMELLE VEREEN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 25, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013527-2014 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Appellant, Vernon Jermelle Vereen, appeals from an order entered on October 25, 2016 that denied his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On November 4, 2015, Appellant pled guilty to one count of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928(a). On the same day, the trial court sentenced him to a two-year period of probation and ordered him to pay restitution and participate in drug and alcohol treatment.
The PCRA court provided the following summary of the ensuing procedural facts.
On November 10, 2015, [Appellant] submitted a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court forwarded the pro se pleading to [plea counsel]. On February 26, 2016, [plea counsel] sought leave to withdraw from the case, and his request was granted that same day. The Office of the Public Defender was appointed to represent [Appellant] in any post-
conviction matters. On August 24, 2016, PCRA [c]ounsel filed an[a]mended PCRA [p]etition claiming that [plea counsel] provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to file a post-sentence motion seeking to withdraw [Appellant's] plea. The petition alternatively claimed that he provided ineffective assistance by failing to withdraw from representation earlier so that another attorney could file a timely post-sentence motion. PCRA [c]ounsel additionally claimed that [plea counsel] provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he caused [Appellant] to enter into a plea that was not intelligently, knowingly, or voluntarily made. On October 5, 2016, the Commonwealth filed its [a]nswer to the PCRA [p]etition agreeing that an evidentiary hearing was warranted based on the nature of the claims. A PCRA Hearing was subsequently held on October 26, 2016. After considering the testimony and arguments presented at the hearing, as well as the evidence of record, the [PCRA] court found no merit to [Appellant's] claims, and [] denied his PCRA [petition] that same day. This timely appeal followed.PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/17, at 2.
Appellant raises the following issues, which he preserved in a timely concise statement filed on November 28, 2016 pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Did the [PCRA] court err when it failed to find [plea counsel] ineffective for not filing a post-sentence motion to withdraw [Appellant's] guilty plea or seeking to withdraw his representation so another counsel could timely file said motion?Appellant's Brief at 4.
Did the [PCRA] court err and/or abuse its discretion when it failed to find [plea counsel] ineffective because he was not adequately prepared to take [Appellant's] case to trial, which caused [Appellant] to enter a guilty plea that was not intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily made?
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the parties, and the opinion of the PCRA court. Based upon our review, we conclude that the court adequately and accurately addressed the issues raised on appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 2/22/17, at 2-12. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons expressed by the PCRA court and adopt its opinion as our own. The parties are instructed to include a copy of the PCRA court's opinion with all future filings relating to our disposition in this appeal.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/14/2017
Image materials not available for display.