From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Eley

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 11, 2017
J-S14002-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017)

Opinion

J-S14002-17 No. 774 MDA 2016

04-11-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JERRY S. ELEY, JR. Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the PCRA Order April 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002998-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------

Appellant, Jerry S. Eley, Jr., appeals from the order entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.

42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On September 16, 2011, police arrested Appellant on outstanding traffic warrants after a traffic stop. During a search incident to arrest, police discovered narcotics on Appellant's person. That same day, police executed a search warrant at Appellant's residence, which resulted in the recovery of additional narcotics, a digital scale, drug-packaging materials, over $1,700.00 in U.S. currency, and two firearms.

On December 6, 2011, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with various firearm and drug offenses. The Commonwealth subsequently filed a motion to amend the information, which the court granted on May 19, 2014. The amended information charged Appellant with two counts of persons not to possess firearms, and one count each of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and PWID. On April 15, 2015, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on the drug charges. The jury convicted Appellant of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and PWID on April 16, 2015.

On June 8, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated no-contest plea to carrying a firearm without a license, in exchange for the Commonwealth's recommendation that the court dismiss the remaining firearm charge and impose a total sentence of three (3) to six (6) years' imprisonment. On June 30, 2015, the court sentenced Appellant in accordance with the plea agreement. On July 17, 2015, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition, and the court appointed counsel on August 11, 2015. Counsel subsequently filed supplements to Appellant's PCRA petition, which raised ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. The court held PCRA hearings on October 7, 2015, December 22, 2015, and March 31, 2016, where both Appellant and trial counsel testified. The court ultimately denied PCRA relief on April 7, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on May 6, 2016. No concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), was ordered or filed.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN REPRESENTING...APPELLANT?
(Appellant's Brief at 1).

Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court's determination and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway , 14 A.3d 101, 108 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795 (2011). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd , 923 A.2d 513, 515 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74 (2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court's legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012). If the record supports a PCRA court's credibility determination, it is binding on the appellate court. Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael T. Vough, we conclude Appellant's issue on appeal merits no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, filed April 7, 2016, at 2-6) (finding: record does not support Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims; while Appellant alleges trial counsel failed to file direct appeal on his behalf, Appellant admitted at PCRA hearing he discussed appeal with trial counsel prior to trial, but not after trial or sentencing; trial counsel stated at PCRA hearing he did not promise to file direct appeal on Appellant's behalf; trial counsel also testified Appellant did not ask him to file direct appeal at any time; after Appellant's jury trial resulted in multiple drug convictions, Appellant and Commonwealth reached plea agreement with respect to Appellant's remaining firearm charges; Appellant subsequently entered negotiated no contest plea to carrying firearm without license, in exchange for Commonwealth's request to withdraw remaining firearm charge and impose aggregate term of three to six years' imprisonment; court honored negotiated plea agreement and imposed recommended sentence; because Appellant received benefit he bargained for, he did not seek direct appeal; Appellant also claims trial counsel met with him only once and failed to discuss trial strategy with Appellant; nevertheless, trial counsel stated he met with Appellant in jail and at public defender's office after Appellant posted bail; additionally, trial counsel testified he filed bail motion and suppression motion on Appellant's behalf and presented every defense requested by Appellant; trial counsel also provided details of his discussions with Appellant, which included explanation of charges, consideration of possible defenses, and preparation for Appellant's trial testimony; PCRA court found trial counsel's testimony on trial preparation credible and noted Appellant failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that counsel was unprepared for trial; under these circumstances, both of Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are without merit, and court properly denied PCRA relief). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/11/2017

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Eley

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 11, 2017
J-S14002-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Eley

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JERRY S. ELEY, JR. Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 11, 2017

Citations

J-S14002-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2017)