Opinion
J-S57009-18 No. 2394 EDA 2017
12-07-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH MARCHESANO Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order July 11, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0307911-2005 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., PLATT, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Joseph Marchesano appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, without a hearing. We affirm.
Due to our disposition of this matter, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history of this case is unnecessary. Briefly, in 2009, Appellant was convicted of attempted murder causing serious bodily injury, possessing an instrument of crime, and carrying a firearm while prohibited after he shot and stabbed Christopher Massimino on January 23, 2005. A panel of this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Marchesano , No. 1386 EDA 2009 (Pa. Super., filed Oct. 7, 2011) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not seek further direct review.
Appellant filed his first pro se PCRA petition on April 2, 2012. The PCRA court appointed counsel who later filed an amended petition. The PCRA court issued notice of its intent to dismiss, and ultimately dismissed Appellant's petition without a hearing. This timely appeal follows.
On appeal, Appellant challenges trial counsel's failure to: (1) investigate and present witnesses at trial; (2) preserve a challenge to the weight of the evidence for appeal; (3) properly present Appellant's Rule 600 claim on appeal; and (4) argue that the trial court precluded Appellant from establishing the full extent of Massimino's drug addiction at trial. Appellant contends the PCRA court erred in dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing, during which Appellant maintains he would have proven the above-listed claims and been entitled to a new trial.
"On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court's findings are supported by the record and without legal error." Commonwealth v. Edmiston , 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). On questions of law, our scope of review is de novo. See id .
"The right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not absolute." Commonwealth v. Walls , 993 A.2d 289, 295 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations and brackets omitted). A PCRA court may decline to hold a hearing where it can determine, from the record, that there are no genuine issues of material fact. See Commonwealth v. Jones , 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008). "With respect to the PCRA court's decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing ... such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Mason , 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).
The PCRA court, in its opinion filed on November 13, 2017, has methodically reviewed Appellant's claims and disposed of his arguments on the merits. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable William J. Mazzola. Judge Mazzola's opinion comprehensively disposes of Appellant's arguments with appropriate references to the record and case law, and without legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the PCRA court's order based on Judge Mazzola's opinion filed November 13, 2017.
Order affirmed.
Judge Platt joins the memorandum.
Judge Strassburger concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/7/18
Image materials not available for display.