Opinion
J-S60021-15 No. 3565 EDA 2014
11-17-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. LOUIS DALE Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order December 2, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001184-2010
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Louis Dale appeals pro se from the order entered on December 2, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, denying him relief, without a hearing, on his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. In this timely appeal, Dale raises eight issues for our review. The Honorable Kevin F. Kelly has authored an exhaustive, 79 page, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that comprehensively addresses Dale's issues and which demonstrates the errors and fallacies of those issues. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of that sound decision. In light of the thoroughness of the PCRA court opinion, we refer the reader to pages 1-10 of that decision for the factual and procedural history. We simply note that Dale was convicted by a jury of the armed robbery of Darren Brooks on December 4, 2009, and that the police were led to Dale due to his suspected involvement in another recent robbery.
The issues are: (1) error in failing to appoint counsel for the instant appeal; (2) error in failing to consider Dale's subsequent petition raising Alleyne v. United States , 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), as a continuation of the instant petition rather than as a separate petition; (3) error in dismissing the petition without a hearing; (4) PCRA counsel ineffectiveness for failing to comply with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988; (5) PCRA counsel ineffectiveness for failing to develop and investigate Dale's PCRA claims; (6) pre-trial counsel ineffectiveness for failure to investigate possible defense or to file pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress; (7) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failure to object to misstatements of evidence by Commonwealth counsel and failure to call alibi witnesses; and (8) trial counsel ineffectiveness for failure to object to misstatements by Commonwealth counsel during closing argument.
Regarding Dale's substantive claims: Issue one, regarding the failure to appoint counsel for this appeal, is discussed at pages 10-13; Issue two, regarding Alleyne v. United States , is discussed at pages 13-23; Issue three, regarding dismissal of the instant petition without a hearing, is discussed at pages 73-74; Issues four and five, regarding PCRA counsel ineffectiveness, are discussed at pages 23-31; Issue six, regarding the failure to file pre-trial motions and explore defenses, is addressed at pages 31-49; Issues seven and eight, regarding the failure to object to misstatements at trial and in closing argument are addressed at pages 49-72, 75-77.
We address the claims in the order Dale raised them. The PCRA reordered the issues, addressing issue three, last. Additionally, the PCRA court opinion addresses nine issues rather than eight because the PCRA court broke issue six, regarding claims of pre-trial ineffectiveness into two numbered issues, as there were two lawyers involved in pre-trial activities.
Regarding Dale's claim that his sentence is illegal per the United States Supreme Court decision in Alleyne , Dale has argued he was subjected to a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 regarding sentences committed for offenses committed with firearms. The PCRA court, however, correctly noted his mandatory sentence was based upon his status as a recidivist. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(1); Certificate of Imposition of Judgment of Sentence, 9/28/2010. The trial court conducted a pre-trial colloquy with Dale, regarding his decision to go to trial, that clearly explained the nature of the mandatory sentence he was facing. See N.T. Trial, 7/13/2010, at 3-15. During this same colloquy, Dale stated he was satisfied with counsel's representation and counsel had done everything requested of him. These statements, although not under oath, support the PCRA court's conclusions rejecting Dale's claims of pre-trial ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our standard of review for the denial of relief of a PCRA petition is well settled:
On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review calls for us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record and free of legal error. The PCRA court's findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record.Commonwealth v. Lewis , 63 A.3d 1274, 1278 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
Our review of the certified record demonstrates the PCRA court's denial of Dale's petition, without a hearing, is supported by the record and free from legal error. Accordingly, the order of December 2, 2014, denying Dale relief is affirmed.
Order affirmed. Parties are directed to attach a copy of the PCRA court's June 17, 2015, opinion in the event of further proceedings. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/17/2015
Image materials not available for display.