From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Clemons

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 25, 2018
No. 758 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 25, 2018)

Opinion

J-S78026-17 No. 758 WDA 2017

04-25-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DERRICK S. CLEMONS, Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 9, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-32-CR-0000970-2014 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Appellant, Derrick S. Clemons, appeals from the Order entered in the Indiana County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first Petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's December 9, 2016 Opinion.

In an Opinion filed on December 9, 2016, the PCRA court detailed the factual history underlying the instant appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/9/16, at 1-2. We adopt the PCRA court's recitation of the facts for the purpose of this appeal. In summary, on January 9, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of Corrupt Organizations, one count of Criminal Conspiracy, and three counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver ("PWID") in connection with his involvement in heroin trafficking. On April 17, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 2 to 15 years' incarceration. Appellant did not appeal.

18 Pa.C.S. § 911; 18 Pa.C.S. § 903; and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), respectively.

On March 10, 2016, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA Petition alleging, inter alia, that plea counsel's ineffectiveness caused him to enter an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea. The PCRA court appointed counsel, and counsel filed an Amended PCRA Petition on August 9, 2016. The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on September 30, 2016, at which Appellant, Office of Attorney General Narcotics Agent James Farmer, and plea counsel James Wray, Esq. testified.

On December 9, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant's PCRA Petition in an Opinion and Order.

Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

In its brief Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the PCRA court adopted its December 9, 2016 Opinion.

Appellant presents three issues for our review:

[1.] Whether defense counsel was ineffective counsel by not filing a motion to suppress any body recordings that were obtain[ed] unlawfully by the Commonwealth?
[2.] Whether defense counsel was ineffective counsel to [sic] properly communicate with [Appellant] about his case, which ultimately caused [Appellant] to plead guilty?

[3.] Whether defense counsel was ineffective counsel because defense counsel failed to forward discovery to [Appellant] until after the plea hearing, causing [Appellant] to plead guilty to the respective charges?
Appellant's Brief at 6 (capitalization omitted).

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).

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) (citations omitted). 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).

The right of a criminal defendant to effective counsel extends to the plea process. Commonwealth v. Bedell , 954 A.2d 1209, 1212 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). Where a petitioner presents ineffective assistance of counsel claims in connection with the entry of a guilty plea, we will only grant relief "if the ineffectiveness caused the defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea." Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). "Where the defendant enters his plea on the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel's advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." Id. at 338-39 (citations omitted). "The law does not require that appellant be pleased with the outcome of his decision to enter a plea of guilty." Bedell , supra at 1212 (citation omitted).

The Honorable William J. Martin, sitting as the PCRA court, has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing relevant case law in addressing Appellant's claims. The record supports the PCRA court's findings and the Order is otherwise free of legal error. We, thus, affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's December 9, 2016 Opinion. See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/9/16, at 2-5 (concluding it properly dismissed Appellant's PCRA Petition because: (1) plea counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion to suppress intercepted texts and oral communications because investigators obtained consent from confidential informants and otherwise complied with the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, in particular 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704 ("Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications"); (2) plea counsel was not ineffective for failing to communicate with Appellant insofar as plea counsel had three phone conversations and met with Appellant before Appellant entered his guilty plea; and (3) plea counsel was not ineffective for failing to provide Appellant with discovery because plea counsel provided a discovery packet to Appellant before his sentencing and Appellant took no action based on the information he obtained).

The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the PCRA court's December 9, 2016 Opinion to all future filings.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/25/2018

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Clemons

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 25, 2018
No. 758 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 25, 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Clemons

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DERRICK S. CLEMONS, Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 25, 2018

Citations

No. 758 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 25, 2018)