Opinion
J-S19037-16 No. 1452 EDA 2015
03-29-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BOBY PROPHETE, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 9, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0009790-2012 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Boby Prophete ("Prophete") appeals from the dismissal of his Petiton filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in its Opinion, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/8/15, at 1-5.
On March 8, 2013, the trial court sentenced Prophete to an aggregate sentence of 7 to 15 years in prison, followed by 5 years of probation. Prophete did not appeal his judgment of sentence. On March 24, 2014, Prophete, acting pro se, filed the instant PCRA Petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who thereafter filed an amended Petition. On February 18, 2015, the PCRA court issued a Notice of its intent to dismiss the Petition, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Prophete did not file a response to the Rule 907 Notice. On April 9, 2015, the PCRA court entered an Order dismissing Prophete's Petition. Thereafter, Prophete filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
The record reflects that Prophete's counsel also filed a second amended Petition, and a supplement to the second amended Petition.
On appeal, Prophete raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the lower court err in denying PCRA relief without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel was ineffective for failing to determine whether [Prophete] was making a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea[,] and for failing to inform [Prophete] that he had a valid consent defense?Brief for Appellant at 6.
2. Did the lower court err in denying PCRA relief without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether correspondence between [Prophete] and the [victim] was new evidence[,] and would have made a difference at trial?
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error.Commonwealth v. Ford , 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
The right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition is not absolute, and the PCRA court may decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner's claims are patently frivolous with no support in either the record or other evidence. See Commonwealth v. Walls , 993 A.2d 289, 295 (Pa. Super. 2010); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907; see also Commonwealth v. Jones , 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explaining that "[t]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.").
In his first issue, Prophete contends that his mental illness presented both his counsel and the trial court with a responsibility to determine the extent of Prophete's ability to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter a plea. Brief for Appellant at 10-11. Prophete asserts that his counsel knew that Prophete's mental illness was going untreated at the time of the incident, and that it was incumbent upon counsel to explore the possibility that Prophete was not competent to stand trial and had an insanity defense. Id. at 11. Prophete also claims that his counsel failed to advise him of a consent defense. Id. Prophete asserts that the PCRA court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on these issues, and contends that "[t]here is absolutely nothing in the record for the court to make a determination of th[ese] issue[s] and[,] therefore[,] as the record does not support the lower court's decision, that decision must be reversed and remanded." Id.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Prophete's first claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/8/15, at 5-6, 7-9, 11-12. We agree with the reasoning of the PCRA court, and conclude that its determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. See id.
In his second issue, Prophete contends that the communications between himself and the victim constitute after-discovered evidence that entitle him to a new trial. Brief for Appellant at 12. Prophete asserts that the communications were not discovered until after the entry of his guilty plea, and are not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeachment evidence. Id. Prophete claims that the presentation of this evidence could have resulted in a different verdict. Id. Prophete argues that the PCRA court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the communications, and the impact that such communications could have had on the trial. Id. at 13.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Prophete's second claim, and concluded that it lacks merit. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/8/15, at 12-14. We agree with the reasoning of the PCRA court, and conclude that its determination is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. See id. Additionally, Prophete voluntarily and knowingly pled guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and simple assault, and admitted to the factual bases for his conviction of these crimes. See id. at 2-4.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/29/2016
Image materials not available for display.