Case Information
*1 J-S77025-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
SHELDON ANTHONY GOODRIDGE,
Appellant No. 498 MDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order of March 2, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000448-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 19, 2017
Appellant, Sheldon Anthony Goodridge, appeals from the order entered on March 2, 2016, dismissing his first petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as follows. In December 2013, Appellant engaged in a physical altercation with another patron at a bar in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Specifically Appellant struck the victim with a pool cue and then stabbed him in the neck and back. The victim survived. As a result, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with various criminal charges; however, on July 30, 2014, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault [1] in exchange for the Commonwealth’s withdrawal of the ____________________________________________
[1] 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a).
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S77025-16
remaining offenses. On October 21, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 90 to 180 months of incarceration, followed by a consecutive term of two years of probation. Appellant did not appeal his judgment of sentence.
On July 31, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel who subsequently filed a “no-merit letter” with the PCRA court and petitioned to withdraw from representation pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ). On December 2, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se supplemental PCRA petition. On March 2, 2016, the PCRA court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw and denied Appellant relief. [2] This timely pro se appeal resulted.
Appellant presents the following issues for our review:
I. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to ensure [Appellant’s] due process rights were protected under the provisions of the [F]ourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
____________________________________________
[2] We note that because the PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed a “no- merit letter” under Turner / Finley , and Appellant responded by filing a pro se PCRA petition, the PCRA court did not summarily dismiss Appellant’s PCRA petition. Thus, the PCRA court was not required to give Appellant notice of its intent to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (where “the PCRA court did not summarily dismiss [a PCRA] petition upon initial review, but rather ordered the appointment of counsel, the filing of an amended petition, and the briefing of the legal issues presented. [] Rule 1507(a)[, predecessor of Rule 907(a),] by its own terms, is inapplicable.”).
- 2 -
J-S77025-16
II. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to ensure [Appellant’s] fundamental human rights were protected under the provisions of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
III. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and/or failing to argue that the sentence was against the sufficiency of the evidence?
IV. Was defense counsel ineffective for inducing [Appellant] to plead guilty by giving false information about sentencing?
V. Was defense counsel ineffective for failing to zealously assert [Appellant’s] position and seek a result advantageous to his client?
VI. Was defense counsel ineffective for abandoning [Appellant] by not filing any post-sentence appeals on behalf of his client?
VII. Did the prosecution fail to introduce any relevant evidence of the extra element of the aggravated offense necessary to constitute the crime charged and sufficient to justify the conviction?
Appellant’s Brief at 3-4.
We reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the thorough opinion of the PCRA court entered on May 25, 2016. The PCRA court first noted that Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel amounted to bald contentions. For this reason, the PCRA court could have dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Chmiel , 30 A.3d 1111, 1128 (Pa. 2011) (“boilerplate allegations and bald assertions [] cannot satisfy a petitioner's burden to prove that counsel was ineffective”). Moreover, on appeal, Appellant’s
- 3 -
J-S77025-16
argument is equally undeveloped and fails to allege, or even set forth, the three-prong test for counsel ineffectiveness; thus, Appellant has also waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (explaining that an appellant waives issue on appeal where he fails to present the claim with citations to relevant authority or develop the issue in a meaningful fashion capable of review).
Regardless, we conclude that there has been no error in this case and that the PCRA court’s opinion meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s issues on appeal. Therein, the PCRA court determined that Appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily tendered, after he acknowledged his constitutional rights, the factual predicate of this case, and the possible range of sentences in both written and oral colloquies. After reviewing Appellant’s supplemental PCRA petition and the certified record, the trial court determined that Appellant pled guilty only after confirming the factual basis for the charges and acknowledging the range of punishments that he faced. These uncontested circumstances defeated any claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or failing to accurately advise Appellant about the potential range of sentences. Moreover, the PCRA court determined that Appellant failed to plead and prove that he requested that counsel file a direct appeal and that counsel heard but ignored or rejected the request. We conclude that there has been no error in this case and that the PCRA court’s opinion entered on
- 4 -
J-S77025-16
September 17, 2015, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the PCRA court opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/19/2017
- 5 -
Circulated 12/27/2016 03:05 PM COMMONWEALTH OF IN TiiE COUR..T OF COMMON PENNSYLVANIA PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNT\'
v.
SHBLDON ANTHONY GOODRIDGE 14 CR448 ;:::: Q rr: .- o ~ ·~· ;; :~~ c.,· - , OPINION N err - .... ~ - ( -~ .. '
BARRASSE; P .J .. -; ~ -·., c. ~ ' ~; . ~·: · .. ~ This opinion is filed pursuantto Rule l925(a) of the PennsylvuriiaRtil~of Appell;~e i~- r_. · · c:) co Procedure. pursuant.to the request of the Superior Court. Appellant Sheldon Anthony Goodridge (herein after "Appellant") appeals this Court's March 2, 2016, .. Order dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief.Appellant's issues on appeal.are summarized as follows:
1. Defense Counsel was ineffective for failing ensure defendant's due process rights were protected under provisions the Fourteenth Amendment.of the United States Constitution and Article I, §9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution 2. Defense Counsel wasineffective for failing ensure defendant's fundamental hum rights were protected under the provisions of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3.. Defense Counsel was .ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and/or failing to argue sentence was against the sufficiency of the evidence.
4. Defense counsel Was ineffective for inducing defendant to plead guilty by giving false information about sentencing. · · ·· · 5. Defense. counsel was ineffective for failing to zealously assert defendant's position and seek a result advantageous to his client. · EXHIBIT B
6. Defense counsel was-ineffective for abandoning defendant by not filing any post-· sentence appeals on behalf of his client · 7. The prosecution failed to introduce any relevant evidence of the extra. element of the aggravated offense necessary constitution the crime charged and sufficient tojusti ·-. the conviction, · · 8. The prosecution failed comply with the terms of plea agreement negotiated by de fondant's previous attorney. · · · For the following reasons, based upon a review of the record.and the facts and history of the cas ;
: this Court's March 2,2016, Order denying Appellant's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief sho .. be affirmed,
PROCEDURAL HISTORY~~ FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Under Docket Number GP,.35--CR-0000448-2014, Appellant vvas charged with Aggravated. Assa¥lt in violation of 18 Pa C.S.A, § 2702(a)(1 ),iPossession of a Weapon in violation of 18 Pa. C.S:A. § 907(b), Prohibited Offensive Weapons in violation of 18 Pa.C;S;A; 908( a), Simple Assault in violation of l8 Pa. C.S.A. § 270l(a)(2), Recklessly Endangering Another Person fu violation of 18 Pa cs:A. §2705. and Criminal Attempt- Criminal Homicide in.violation 18 Pa. C!S.A. § 901(a)\ These charges stemmed from a December 22~ 2013 incident in which the Appellantgot into an altercation with the victim ata bar in the City of Carbondale, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. See Ptlm. Brian Rock, Affidavit or'Probable Cause, December JO, 2013. Witnesses reported and suryeillance videos confirmed that the. Appellant struck the victim's.head and body with a pool stick inside bar and then approached and stabbed the Victim the. neck back the parking lot ofthe bar. Id. The victim was transported via ambulance to the trauma unit at. Geisinger Community Medical Center in Scranton, Pennsylvenie, where he, was stabilized. ld.
2 *8 plea to Aggravated Assault violation of ·g On July 30,2014, Appellententeredaguilty Pa C.S.A. § 2702(a)(J ), arid remaining charges were withdrawn. Sentencing was deferred f completion of a Presentence Investigation Report.
. . . On OctoberZf, 2014, this Court sentenced AppeUant to nia.ety (90)mo11ths one hundred eighty (180) months' confinement ma State Correctional Institution fo11owed by two { ) years' special probation to be supervised by State Probation and-restitution iii the amount of $39,030.66.
On, July 3 l, 2015, Appellant filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief'makin claims of constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an unlawfully induced. guilty plea where the. Appellant· is innocent. Specifically; the Appellant asserts the grounds of abuse of discretion by the sentencing court and ineffective assistance ofcounsel based on Appellant's contention that the underlying incident did not rise to level of Aggravated Assault.
On September-Za, 2015, this Court appointed Kurt Lynott..Esquire, atPCRA Counsel. O. . . . . October 22, 2015, Attorney Lynott filed and served upon Appellant a Petition Withdraw as Counsel and "no merit'? letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turiler,.544 A.2d 927 (1988) and. Commonwealth.v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super.1988) based upon Counsel's assessment thatthe Petition lacked merit.
On December. 2, 2015, Appellant filed a pro se supplemental PCRA Petition which.he ·• alleged ineffective assistance ofcounsel, stating that counsel was.ineffective for failing to, properly investigate the case, neglected to .make sure Appellant was. charged with.the correct crime, gave the Appellant false-information about sentencing, and failure counsel the prosecutor to abide by a previous agreement Appellant then went on to cite the United States Supreme Court Decision in Alleyne v. United States,~· U.S. --,.133 S.Ct. 2151, 186
L£d..2d 3{4 (2013), msupportofhis assertion thathe was norguilty ofAggrayatedAss~ultanf ·that his Pue Process Rights were violated. Appellantfurther uses the language "lesser-included offenses" insuppori of his .. argument thathisconduct did not rise to·t~~ lever of Aggravated Assault.
On March 2, 201~, this Court granted PCRA counsel's Motion Withdraw and Dismissed AppeUant's.pCRA Petition.finding the Petition to be meritless.
Appellant timely appealed the dismissal to the.Pennsylvania Superior. Court en March 2 ,. 2016.
DIS.CUSsibN
As stated Ofpet denying his FCRA Petition, theclaims Appellantasserts.as a basis for reliefare not co gnizable under Post-Conviction Relief Act.or ate otherwise meritless. Th . Appellantalleges one (1) main averment wherein.he believes thatthe underlying criminal condu t die\ not constitute . Aggravated.Assault, The Appellant has failed to allege or prove. any averments compliance with 42-Pa.C.S,A: §-954S(aX2).
Nonetheless, this Court will address Appellant'scomplaints.on appeal as follows, COUNSEL ·w As N:oT INEFFECTIVE, NOR DID HE FA1L TO PROTECT I. APPELLANTS DUEPRO.CESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 14T~ AMENDMENT TO. THE ttNITED-STATES CONSTITUTION ·OF ARTICLE.t; §:9· OF THE ·pENNSYLV A..1'ITA CONSTITUTION.
AND
It. COUNSEL WAS= NOT INEFFECTIVE ID{DER THE. 6 1'8 Al\.1ENDMENT TO THE. UNITED STA TES CONSTITUTION.
4
v. CO{JNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE IN ms REPRESENTATION OF. APPELLANT
Appellant's, first =. second matters. complained of on- appeal baldly assert th at counsel · was ineffective forfailingto protectbis State.and Federal Constitutional rights, Appellant's-firs matter.complained of on appeal asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to protect Appellant's Due Process Rightsunder the 1.4 10 Amendment.to theUp.ited States Constitution .of" Article I~§ 9. of the Pennsylvaaia-Constitution, Scattered threughout.Appellaat's Petitions; he asserts Pue Process violations in multiple contexts, including references to United States Supreme Court decision Alleynev. United States 1, Merger Doctrine andthe language of "lesser included offenses", and. citingthe Criminal Attempt 2 statute. Appellant's second matter complained of on-appeal asserts.that counsel was ineffective for. failing to proteot Appellant' s "fundamental 'human rights" under the Sixth-Amendment to United ·st~te s "Constitution. Bo of these assertions are based-on Appellant's assertiontbatbis conduct .in this case did not rise· to level of.Aggravated A~a1:1It. However, Appellant'sassertions are· without meritand.he is.not entitled to reliefon.this.claims.
Appellant's fifthrnattercomplainedof on appeal baldly assertsthat=defense counsel was ineffective for failing to zealously assert defendant's position 0.04 seek a result advantageous to his client," Although Appellant's claim regardingthis assertion is very broad vague, based on Appellant's issues raised in bis PCRA Petitions, this Court will address it conjunction with Appellant' s, other claims- of 'ineffecti veness. 3-
~-1s fa.c::s:A.:".§---901 [1] Alleyne v. United States,- U.S.,-, 133 S.Ct. 21$1, 186-L£d.2d ~ 14.(-2013). [3] Wber~ a petidoner's Concise Statement pursuant.to Pa. R.A:P. 1925(b) is not specific enough f9r a. Wal court to .identify and addressthe issue'petitioner wishes raise on appeal; {lie trial c~url..mc1r find_-_waiver;_.Commonwealth v Reeves, 907 ·,A.2d 1, 2 (P~. Super. 2006).The Superior Court lias explained that ~·a C.oncis~-~taterqent which is too vague to allowthe Court to identlfy tbe issues raised· on appeal is the functional ~qµivai~nt to no Concise Statement .at all. Even.if the trial courtcorrectly .guesses the issuesv., (they. ate ] stiU waived.": Jiricko v-; Geico Ins. Co.,·947· A.id 206; 21.0 (Pa, Super. 2008) (i,oteraal citations nmitted), ·
5.
As stated in the Order dehy.ilig relief, the Appellant alleges one (1) main averment wherein he believes that underlying criminal conduct did norconstitute Aggriivated Assault. The f.\I)~llant has. failed :t.o allege-any averments 'incompliance with-42 Pa.C.SA. · § 9543{~)(2)
On July 30, 2014,,with counsel's assistance.fhe Appellant completed ail extensive writj:. n guilty pleacolloquy formin whieh he acknowledged tJiat he understood, and had discussedwi; counsel the specific criminal charge to Which he was pl eading.as well. as the possibl e penalty "permissible range of sentence .and/or find that could be. imposed · for the· offense charged." 'In · paragraph 2; the Appellant noted that be wished to .plead guilty to one (1) count of Aggravated Assault, I,8.Pa. C.S~A. f2702(a)(l). Likewise.In paragraph 1.6,:the Appellant acknowledged the . elementsofAggravated.Assault as "knowinglycausing serious bodily injuryto Hever 'Bahamonde under circumstances manifesting extremeindifference human life."
Furthennore, the Appellant admitted that he ·''stabbed thevictim" and understood that a deadly weapons enliancement would be imposed .at the time of sentence. The Appellant 'initialed each page writtenplea colloquy executed the last.page with his signature .: The Appellant indicated that he understood 'the full meaning of the. plea and still wished proceed with the plea. Clear1y, the Appellant was.fully-aware of thecriininal'offense.to.which he pled &uilty arid agreed to the underlying criminal conduct.asalleged by theCommonwealth. Al-the. time of'sentence.the Appellant-aceeptedresponsibility for; bis actions andremainedsilent during allocution. N.T. October 2, 2015, p. 4.
Appellant's December 2, .2015,.Suppl~mental'P.ost-ConvictioI\.R.eliefActiori Petition did net-raise any additional ineffectiveness. claims would allow relief under42.'Pft C. S.A. ·§ .9545 or the.alternative, compliancewith.dz Pa. C.S.A, § 9543(a:X2).1'he. Appellant·did 110.t
.6
alleging any new.facts that would support hisclaims .. Rather, the Appellant inaccurately relies o the.Ianguagevlesserincluded offense," which pertains to the merger doctrine. The merger doctrine-is inapplicable-in this.case.because the Appellant pled guilty to one.Il) count.of AggravatedAssault, 18·P.a. C$:A. § 2702(a)(i}.
Additionally, Appellant's' reliance 'on Alleyne.is misplaced. In Alleyne, supra, the Unite . States Supreme Court held that any factthat increases mandatory minimum sentence for crime. i "element" of'thecrime, JJ.Ot a··~sentencin~ factor," and mustbesubmitted to jury. Thjs is. distin_gui~hable. from the present case .. Appellant''S, argument that the· Aggravated A~s.ault. charge .· should have. been.submitted to ajwy is.inaccurate. Aggravated Assault is its own statutory offenseunderPennsylvania law. Appellant guiltyto one. (1) count of.Aggravated Assault in violation.of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(a)(l), with a deadlyweapon enhancement.Based upon the· statuteand theplea, there wereno additional.elements that shouldhave been suomittedtoa jury. Similarlt, Appellant's reliance oil. the statutory language and interpretation of.Criminal Attempt s also misplaced. Appellant's guilty plea pertained to one· (I jcoua; of Aggravated Assault. Attem ease law is not relevant,
Moreover, with respect to.his ineffective assistance. of counsel claims.jhe Appellanthas failed to allege any, beneficial information that counsel would.have discovered had be undertaken . ~- . . . . ., additional discovery and 'in vestigation after favorable .. plea negotiations. The. Appellant baldly asserts if counsel conducted an investigation he would have received a "lesser included. - •,
offense" or reduction charge, He has failed identify precisely how such investigation would have assisted him. Such bald allegations do not.entitle Appellant relief. See Comirioowealth v . Harve:x, 812 A;2d .119.ff (P~. 200Z).
7
Further, the Appellant made statements, underoath, at the guilty plea. colloquy 'indicatin . iliathe· was guiltyof the Aggravated Assault, he wished to make a knowing, voh.1I14ITY, and intelligent.guiltyplea. The .. Appellant is bound by-these statements. See Coinrilonwealth·v. Turetsky, 925.A.~24 87(f {P~. Super. 2007);Seealso; Commonwealth v.Tiinchak, 6-9 A.3d 765.; 773' '. (Pa. Super, 2013)(hoiding that guilty plea counsel had a.reasonable basis for riot. undertaking additional investigation and discovery in order fo engage favorable plea -negoaations where-defendant admitted guilt under oath). Additionally, Appellant represented to this Court bot!J bis writtenand oral :plea.colloquy· that he understood thathe had the rightto a. jury trial and was· presumed to be innocent until found· guilty: .See Written Plea Colleq uy, paragraphs 9-1'2, N.T. Guilty Plea, July 30, 2014, p. 2; Appellant further stated that he understood he was giving up. these tights by entering a guilty plea, Id .. Appellant cannot now use .PCRA to.raise' these 'issues,
Thus, Appellant has failed to plead .or prove that he is-entitledto Post-Conviction Relief based onthebasis of his original PC~ claimandhis Supplemental.PCRAclaini.'fhisCourt finds Appellant's-claims to be meritless, As such,this 'Ceurt's 'March 2, 2016, Order denying relief should beafftrmed,
Ill. COUNSEL WAS NOT .INEFFECtIVE FORFAILING TO ARG't:JE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ..
Appellant's third matter complained of on appeal asserts that.his counsel was ineffective forfailingto challenge the sufficiency .o fthe evidenceor failing to argue that tbe sentence was against th~ .sufficiencyof the evidence: Appellant' s cl!Wli has. been waived for PC.RA purposes and is otherwise· meritless.
.8
As stated above, this Court found based. upon the. totality of the circumstances, th~t the Appellant kno~g~y .and voluntarily entered his guilty .plea ·apd knew prior to entering his gu.i\ ·. plea thathewaivedall ri~pts to challengethesufficiency of evidence. Commonwealth v~ .Langston, 904 A.2d-917 (Pa. Super. ·2006); Commonweaith v. Williams, 660 A~2.d 614 (Pa, Super. i9.9_5)( any issue relating to the sufficiency of the evidence is, waived by-entry-of a gui! . plea and cannot be raised.in a post-conviction proceeding); Commonwealth v-.-v ealet, :S81 A.2tl 217,, 22.Q (Pa.. Super, 1990)~ Co.mmonwealth v.. Rounsley; 717 .A.2d 537- (Pa. Super, 1998).
Here, the Appellant is- attempting 19 argue .an. issue related to· the sufficiency ofthe evidence, which is waived.by the eriµ-y 'of his guilty plea and not subject to attackin.a post- conviction proceeding. The Appellant canaotnow try revisit tlliS: issue: Therefore; because th Appellant's claim directed atthe propriety.of the evidence does pot concern the jurisdiction of this Court, the voluntariness of his plea, nor the. sentence of'this Court, this Court concludes that Appellant has waived.hisabilityto-raise this issue and is absolutely refuted by the-record whenhe entered his .guilty plea, Thus, thereisno issue of genuine fact that- the Appellant is entitled to PCRA relief on .. the basis of his claim.:
IV. APP LANT'S CLAIM THAT COUNSEL INDUCED THE GUILTY PLE. BY:GIVIN'G FALSli:tNFORMATiON AB()UT SENTENCE is· MERITLESS.
Appellant' S fourth-matter complained of On appeal asserts that IDS COJ]D.Se}. Was ineffective for inducing defendant to .plea guilty by giving false information about sentencing.
Under the. P.CRA, a petitioner is eligible for rellef if he. pleads and proves by a preponderance the evidence the petitioner's conviction resulted from a guilty plea unlawfully induced Where the inducement caused the petitioner to pleadguiltyand the petitioner *15 is innocent, Commonw,ealth v. Starn,.6g8.A.2dJ.327 (Pa. Super . .19.97).-lil thls tn~ft~r;the Appellant fails to meet these requirements for relief
In his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Appelhmt.asSGrts· that be entered a guilty plea upon advice of counsel ,:but-Appe_llant cannot show that ·the resulting i11jury·. to· the victim did. no rise to the level of Aggravated Assault, In his Supplemental.PflRe, Petition.Appellant. additionally asserts th.al counsel-gave himfalse information about sentencing hy giving an
'
estimate regarding the sentence Appellant would receive.
Appellant's claims do not-entitle him to relief'under PGRA.- Appellant's continued claims that his conduct did riot rise the level, of Aggravated Assault is contradicted by the record. Moreover; the-record also reflectsthat Appellanrwasaware of the elements of Aggravated Assault and the maximum penalty that he m~y receive fer.the offense .. InQuestion . .1 of'the Written Plea Colloquy Form-thatwas reviewed, initialed, signed by Appellant, Appellant indicated that he was 'aware- that-the- maximum penalty that: could have he en .imposed was twenty Ob) years' incarceration. Moreover, the Appellant represented io this Court that he understood thatthe maximum penalty for Aggravated Assault was twenty (20) years' .
incarceration and that no other promises were made him exchange for his plea. N. t. G~ilty Plea, July 30, 2014,. p, ·-3, Appellant further represented to the Court that he· was satisfied with th representation-of counsel, thathe understood the rights he was forfeiting by entering.a guiltyplea . and that- no: threats or promises outside the plea agreement caused him to enter the. plea. N.T. at p 2-3 and Plea .C~lloquy, S(a),,12, l3(b) . .Incontrast, the Appellant now raises an unsupported claim he plea was induced by.counsel and his belief thatbis conduct did not actually rise to level ofAggravatedAssault,
JO
As such, the Appellant has not asserted or proved a sufficient basis showthat the pl was urilawfully induced. Therefore, Appellant .is not entitled to. Post-Conviction Relief on this claim and this Court's March 2, 2016, Order denying relief should be affirmed.
VI. COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE BY NOT FILINGPOST SENTENCEMOnONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT. Appellant's sixth matter complained on appeal asserts lhat counsel was ineffective for abandoning Appellant by not filing any post-sentence appeals on behalf of Appellant Again; Appellant' s contention is not supported by the record,
When Appellant entered his guilty plea, this Court informed Appellant of the grounds he wouldhave-ferappeal, particw.arlythejurisdiction ofthecourt, the sentence of theCourt, and th voluntariness of hisplea, Se.e NT. Guilty Plea, July 30, 2014, at p, 2. Moreover, after this Court Sentenced Appellant, Appellant executed a written acknowledgement of his Post-Sentence.Right
Under Pennsylvania law, counsel.may be deemed ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal on behalf ofhis client Commonwealth v. Ma:ynar~ 90Q A.2d 39S, 397-98 (fa. Super. 2006). However, a PCRA petitioner must prove. that he requested that Counsel file an appeal in order to be entitled relief. Id, citingCommonwealth v. Rarmon; 738 ~2d 1023, 1024 (Pa.Super.1999). The petitioner bears burden proving he requested a direct appeal · · that his counsel heard but ignored orrejected the request M:
In neither his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief nor his SupplementalPCR.A Petition did Appellant plead, never mind prove, that. he. requested that counsel file a d.irect. appeal on his behalf. Therefore, based upon Appellant's pleadings, this issue is meritless unsupported by the. record,
11 *17 Appellant has failed prove thathe is. entitled to relief [011] this Claim: As such, this Court'sMarch 2, 2016 Order.should be.affirmed.
VII. APPELLANT'S. CLAlM REGARDING THE PROSEClJTION'S BURDE~ TO PRODUCE'EVIDEN CE HAS BEEN WA:IVED 'IJY ms GUILTY PLE.t . AND.IS '.OTHERWISE MERITLESS.
Appellant's seventh matter complained bf an appea] asserts that that' he is enti tled to P.CRA relief because "the prosecution failed to· introduce any relevant evidence of'the extra element of the aggravated oflen~ necessary constitute the· crime. Charges and suffic ient.to justifyeonviction.v'Again.jas discussed above and the Order denying relief Appellant is.not entitled to. relief on grounds asserted.
Before accepting Appellant's guiltyplea onJuly JO, 2014, Appellant reviewed with. counsel, initialed each page, and signed an extensive written plea colloquy form, The form informed.Appellant ofthe rights hewas giving upby entering guilty plea, Moreover, this · Court conducted.anon the record colloquy.in-whieh Appellant was again informed of his rights thenature of the chru:ges·~griinst.him and A.\;)pellant represented to thisCourt he understood the consequences of his plea, and admitted that be was guilty of.the Aggravated Assault. See .N~T. Guilty. Plea, July 3~, 2014.-. This Court found based upon the totality ofthe circumstances, that the Appellant knowingly and voluntarily enteredhis guilty plea.and knew 'prior to :~tering,h:js guilty plea that he waived all 'rights· to challenge 'the sufficiency evidence: Commonwealth v.Langston,.9Q4 ~2a 917 (Pa .. Super, 2006);.Commoowealth v. Williams; 660.A.2d·614 (Pa, Super, 1995.)(any issue relating tothesufficieacy cf'the evidence Is-waived by entry ofa guilty pleaand cannot be raised a post-conviction-preceeding); Commonwealth v~.Vealey [1] 581 A.2.d 217,220 (Pa. Super, 19:90); Commonwealth v .. Roimsley, 717 A~2d 537 .(P~. S~p.e.r. 19.9.S).
12
As such, Appellant is not entitled tO. relief under the. Post-Conviction Relief Act for this . . . . .
claim as asserted. Therefore, this Court's March 2, 2016 Order denying Appellant's PCRA . . . . .
Petition should be-affirmed,
· VllI. APPELLAi"IT-'S CLAIM REGARDING THE COMMONWEALTH'S FAILURE TO ABIDEBYTHE PLEAAGREE1\1ENT IS MERITLESS.
Appellant's final claim on. up peal asserts that.the Commonwealth failed comply with (h~ terms the plea agreement negotiated by his previous attorney. This Court has reviewed th record and found Appellant's claim to be meritless and unsupported by the record.
Appellant specifically alleges in bis PCR.A Petition his previous attorney had an agreement with the-Commonwealth regarding the Aggravated: Assault with a Deadly weapon. review of the record shows that the Co1nn10nwealth did honor an agreement made with. to remove the Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon charge.·. Appellant's previousattorney .
The Criminal Infonnationlists as Countz: Aggravate Assault- SeriousBodily Injury in. violatio . of'18Pa. C.S,A. § 2702(a)(l)and Count 3: Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon in violation ofl8. Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(a)(4). The absence. of the Aggravated Assault.with a Deadly Weapon charge on the docket sheet, as well as renumbering of the charges.suggests thatthis agreement in fact happened. Moreover, this Court correctly sentencedAppellarit on one (1) coun of Aggravate Assault- Serious Bodily Injury in violation .of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(a)(l)J which is distinguishable from Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon violation oft& Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(a)(4).
Furthermore, Appellant represented this Court both the written and oral plea . colloquy that only agreement he had with the CommonweaJth was that he would plead guilty .to one (1) count Q{ Aggravated Assault ..... Serious Bodily Injury with a Deadly Weapon
Enhancement in violation of: 18 fa. C.S.A. §. 2702(a)(l), and the remaining charges would be withdrawn. See Written Guilty Plea Colloquy Form, p 2; pan1graph 13; N~T. Guilty Pie.a, July 3.0,.2014, p~3. There is nothing else the record to support Appellant's claims.
Therefore, Appellant.has failed-to assert or prove a cognizable claim:for relief under the · Post-Conviction Relief Act Therefore, this Court's March 2., 2016, Order denying Appellant's . . PCRAPetition should be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Appellanthas failed. to establish thathe is entitled to relief under Post- , Conviction Relief Act. Therefore, this Court's March 2, 2016, Order denying Appellant's PC · ·.· Petition should be affirmed.
BYTIIECOURT:
\}!.
. Michae J.,..,.,=u CC: Noti¢e ofthe entry of the foregoing Opinion has been provided to each party pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 114 hy mailing time-stamped copies to the following individuals:
Lisa A Swift, Esq.
Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office
200. N .. Wasbmgton Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
Sheldon A.. Goodridge LT 7735
.SCI Somerset
1600 Walters Mill Road
Somerset, PA 15510
14