Opinion
J-S02035-19 No. 1297 EDA 2018
04-09-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DAVID MATTHEW TRES Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 19, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0004624-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, David Matthew Tres, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. In the early morning hours of June 11, 2016, Upper Darby Township police received a report of an armed individual driving a motor scooter. Shortly thereafter, an officer conducted a traffic stop of Appellant's motor scooter for an unlit headlight. Appellant dismounted the scooter against the officer's directions. To ensure the officer's safety, the officer conducted a pat down of Appellant and discovered a loaded handgun on his person. The officer placed Appellant under arrest. On August 19, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the pat down.
After discussing his options with counsel, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea on October 18, 2016, to one count each of persons not to possess firearms and receiving stolen property. On the same day, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty-two (42) to ninety-six (96) months' incarceration. Appellant sought no direct review.
Appellant timely filed his first pro se PCRA petition on October 19, 2017, and the court appointed counsel. On February 20, 2018, PCRA counsel filed a Turner/Finley letter and a motion to withdraw as counsel. The PCRA court allowed counsel to withdraw and issued notice on February 26, 2018, of its intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing, per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant filed a pro se response to the court's Rule 907 notice, challenging PCRA counsel's representation as flawed. On March 19, 2018, the court dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition. Appellant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration on March 26, 2018, which the court denied the next day. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 13, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
WHETHER [PLEA COUNSEL] RENDERED [INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE] BY AFFIRMATIVELY MISADVISING
[APPELLANT] TO ENTER AN INVOLUNTARY OR UNKNOWING PLEA WHERE COUNSEL'S INCOMPETENCE REGARDING THIS HONORABLE COURT'S ON POINT APPLICATION OF COMMONWEALTH V. JONES , 845 A.2D 821 [(PA.SUPER. 2004)], TO THE RELATED SUPPRESSION MOTION, DURING A TRAFFIC STOP, DEFEATS [PLEA COUNSEL]'S ADVICE, AND COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THIS RELEVANT LAW AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE PCRA COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO FIND THAT [PLEA COUNSEL] RENDERED INEFFECTIVE [ASSISTANCE?](Appellant's Brief at 6).
WHETHER THE PCRA COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON [APPELLANT'S] CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AFTER [APPELLANT] RAISED A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT CONCERNING [PLEA COUNSEL]'S ADVICE WHICH CONTRADICTS WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION/DECISION IN COMMONWEALTH V. JONES , 845 A.2D 821 [(PA.SUPER. 2004)], REGARDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF A 9-1-1 CALLER'S NAME IN RELATION TO ACCEPTING THE PLEA OVER PURSUING HIS FILED SUPPRESSION MOTION[?]
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 (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 (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 (Pa.Super. 2012). Further, a petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v. Wah , 42 A.3d 335 (Pa.Super. 2012).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Mary Alice Brennan, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, filed June 4, 2018, at 3-11) (finding: (1) plea counsel and court appropriately colloquied Appellant; during oral colloquy, Appellant understood and responded affirmatively to each question; Appellant also understood entry of guilty plea would withdraw his suppression motion; affidavit of probable cause provided sufficient factual basis for entry of plea; Appellant also received benefit of negotiated plea; Appellant was aware he faced potential 10-20 years' incarceration if convicted of all charges at trial; record demonstrates Appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered guilty plea; therefore, plea counsel cannot be deemed ineffective; accordingly, there is no merit to Appellant's claim PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to argue plea counsel's ineffectiveness; (2) PCRA court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to hold evidentiary hearing, because Appellant's claims failed to present genuine issues of material fact, and further proceedings would have served no purpose). The record supports the court's decision to deny PCRA relief without a hearing on the grounds asserted. Accordingly, we affirm based on the PCRA court's opinion.
Order affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins this memorandum.
Judge Kunselman files a concurring memorandum. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/9/19
Image materials not available for display.
Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (1988).