Opinion
J-S07022-20 No. 3180 EDA 2018
03-04-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL CRUMP Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 28, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011569-2013 BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Michael Crump, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, we add that the court ordered Appellant on October 30, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant complied on November 20, 2018.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE PCRA COURT ERR IN DISMISSING [APPELLANT'S
PETITION] BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF TESTIMONY AT THE OCTOBER 20, 2017 HEARING AND DOCUMENTS ADMITTED, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE THAT FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS PER SE INEFFECTIVE WHEN APPELLANT ASKED FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO FILE A DIRECT APPEAL TO CHALLENGE THE DISCRETIONARY ASPECTS OF HIS SENTENCE AND DESPITE THIS REQUEST, FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO DO SO? ...(Appellant's Brief at 4-6).
DID THE PCRA COURT ERR IN DISMISSING [APPELLANT'S PETITION] BECAUSE THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN SHE FAILED TO CONSULT WITH APPELLANT ABOUT FILING AN APPEAL EVEN THOUGH APPELLANT REASONABLY DEMONSTRATED HIS INTEREST IN APPEALING AND THAT APPELLANT WOULD HAVE TIMELY APPEALED IF DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD CONSULTED WITH HIM? ...
DID THE PCRA COURT ERR IN DISMISSING [APPELLANT'S PETITION] BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED DURING THE PCRA PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 20, 2017 AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AS EXHIBITS, DEMONSTRATED BY A PREPONDERANCE THAT APPELLANT ASKED FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL WHILE SEATED AT COUNSEL TABLE AFTER SENTENCING TO FILE AN APPEAL IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE THE DISCRETIONARY ASPECTS OF HIS SENTENCE AND THAT DESPITE THIS REQUEST, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT FILE A TIMELY POST-SENTENCE MOTION IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THIS CLAIM FOR APPEAL AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CONSULT WITH APPELLANT ABOUT FILING A POST-SENTENCE MOTION IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A DISCRETIONARY SENTENCE CHALLENGE FOR APPEAL?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Timika R. Lane, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, filed May 30, 2019, at 9-19) (finding: (1) court did not credit Appellant's testimony that he asked counsel to file notice of appeal at sentencing hearing; counsel reasonably interpreted letter Appellant sent during appeal period as request for counsel to file untimely post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence; (2) Appellant did not demonstrate that counsel had duty to consult with him regarding appeal; at sentencing hearing, counsel informed Appellant that he needed to notify Public Defender's office if he wanted to appeal; Appellant failed to contact counsel in timely manner; Appellant also failed to show that he would have appealed any non-frivolous issue; (3) Appellant did not make timely request for filing of post-sentence motion; moreover, Appellant suffered no prejudice as result of counsel's inaction). The record supports the PCRA court's decision. Accordingly, we affirm based on the PCRA court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/4/20
Image materials not available for display.