Opinion
J-S07010-18 No. 1074 EDA 2017
04-23-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JEROME MICHAEL DERNS, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 6, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002408-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E. , PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Appellant, Jerome Michael Derns, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence imposed on March 6, 2017, after he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, and related offenses. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarizes the facts and procedural history of Appellant's case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 6/19/17at 1-6. Herein, Appellant raises the following six claims for our review:
However, the trial court does not discuss Appellant's waiver of his right to counsel on appeal, which occurred as follows. After Appellant's sentencing hearing, his trial counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel, stating that Appellant wished to proceed pro se on appeal. See "Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel," 3/17/17. Appellant also signed that petition, affirming that he understood his right to counsel on direct appeal, and "acknowledg[ing] that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive[d] his right to have counsel on direct appeal." Id. at 3 (unnumbered). On March 22, 2017, the trial court issued an order granting counsel's petition to withdraw, and the following day, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. He also thereafter filed a timely, pro se Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. However, on April 20, 2017, Appellant filed a pro se request for counsel to be appointed. On May 18, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on that motion, ultimately denying it after concluding that Appellant had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. See N.T. Hearing, 5/18/17, at 12. Notably, Appellant does not ask for counsel in his brief to this Court, nor raise any issue concerning the validity of his waiver of the right to an attorney, or the trial court's denial of his subsequent request for counsel to be appointed. Accordingly, we express no opinion on those issues.
I. Whether Appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right[] to confront witnesses under the compulsory process, where he was denied his right to confront and cross examine [an] adverse witness?
II. Whether Appellant was denied his Fifth Amendment right against self[-]incrimination when Appellant was not provided his [M]iranda rights warnings against self-incrimination when subject[ed] to custodial interrogation?
III. Whether Appellant was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a speedy trial when Appellant was tried beyond [one] year in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P.[]600?
IV. Whether Appellant was denied his Fourteenth Amendment rights where the evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict for possession of a firearm?
V. Whether Appellant was denied his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of the sentencing [c]ourt's imposition of an illegal mandatory minimum sentence in violation of the Supreme Court precedent set forth in Alleyne v. United States , 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013)?
VI. Whether Appellant was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights where there was no issuing authority on the search warrant, resulting in an illegal search and seizure?Appellant's Brief at 2.
Miranda v. Arizona , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and well-crafted opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. We conclude that Judge Finley's extensive, well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on the grounds set forth therein.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/23/18
Image materials not available for display.