Opinion
J-S71039-16 No. 410 EDA 2016
11-04-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL CHESTNUT Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order January 29, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002512-2009 BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Michael Chestnut, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying his first timely Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition without a hearing. Appellant contends that the PCRA court erred by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing his petition because his mental health and medication use at the time of his nolo contendere plea constituted a disputed issue of material fact. We affirm.
We note that the Commonwealth did not file a brief.
We glean the relevant facts from the PCRA court opinion and the certified record. On January 9, 2009, Appellant assaulted J.J., an eleven year-old minor. Appellant entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea on February 3, 2011, to the charges of false imprisonment, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors, terroristic threats, simple assault, and harassment. Sentencing was delayed for the completion of a pre-sentence investigation report, a mental health evaluation, and a Sexual Offenders Assessment Board evaluation. Thereafter, on February 29, 2012, the trial court conducted a Megan's Law hearing and found Appellant to be a sexually violent predator. That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of ten to twenty years' imprisonment.
Appellant filed a timely direct appeal and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on December 21, 2012. Commonwealth v. Chestnut , 990 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super. Dec. 21, 2012) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant's petition for allocatur was denied on July 2, 2013. On July 18, 2013, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. Appointed PCRA counsel ultimately filed an amended petition on July 27, 2014. On December 4, 2015, the PCRA court entered an order stating its intent to dismiss Appellant's petition without a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The court dismissed the petition on January 29, 2016, and the instant timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review:
Did the Appellant raise substantial issues of material fact in his PCRA petition that the [PCRA court] should have granted discovery and a psychiatric examination and have held an evidentiary hearing before making a decision on the petition?Appellant's Brief at 7.
Appellant specifically argues that his mental illness and use of psychiatric medication, at the time of his nolo contendere plea, rendered him incapable of entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Therefore, Appellant avers his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure his plea was "voluntary and knowing." Appellant's Brief at 10. Appellant contends that his claims constituted an issue of material fact necessitating an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that no relief is due.
We begin by noting our standard of review:
[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by the record, and reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are free from legal error. The scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level.Commonwealth v. Charleston , 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa. Super.), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).
Regarding Appellant's request for an evidentiary hearing we note:
[T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not absolute. It is within the PCRA court's discretion to decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner's claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the record or other evidence. It is the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record certified before it in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its determination that there were no genuine issues of material fact in controversy and in denying relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
Further, it is axiomatic that claims which have been previously litigated are not cognizable under the PCRA. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3). As to claims of ineffectiveness, it is well settled that
[c]ounsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him. In Pennsylvania, we have refined the Strickland [ v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] performance and prejudice test into a three-part inquiry. Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result. If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his claim fails.Charleston , 94 A.3d at 1019 (some citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Linda Carpenter, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court's opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. See Trial Ct. Op. at 2-8 (finding that because this Court, on direct appeal, concluded that Appellant's nolo contendere plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily after a lengthy colloquy, Appellant's contentions that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure Appellant's plea was properly entered and that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to establish such a claim, lacked merit). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/4/2016
Image materials not available for display.