Commonwealth v. Miller
| Decision Date | 19 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | J-S79036-17,No. 143 EDA 2017,143 EDA 2017 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. STRANDON MILLER Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appellant, Strandon Miller, appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition brought pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA").1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court fully and accurately sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history. Therefore, we have no need to restate them.
Appellant raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL[S'] FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE OF SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION IN APPELLANT'S DIRECT APPEAL[?]
As a preliminary matter, we must determine if Appellant properly preserved his issue for appellate review. As a rule, the failure to raise an issue before the PCRA court constitutes waiver of the claim for appeal. Commonwealth v. Bond, 572 Pa. 588, 819 A.2d 33 (2002). See also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (). Additionally, "issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived." Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 403, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998)). "Rule 1925(b) waivers may be raised by the appellate court sua sponte." Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 427, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (2011).
Instantly, the sole issue Appellant raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement provides as follows:
[Whether] the PCRA court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it denied, without an evidentiary hearing, [Appellant]'s sought-after PCRA relief asking for a new trial even though [Appellant] demonstrated that trial counsel's failure to object to the introduction of evidence at trial was ineffective assistance of counsel[?]
(See Rule 1925(b) statement, filed 1/31/17, unpaginated). Appellant raised this claim for the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement, but he failed to raise it in his petitions before the PCRA court. Therefore, the "evidentiary" claim Appellant raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement is waived for appellatereview. See Bond, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), supra. Further, the "preservation" issue Appellant argues on appeal differs from the only issue he presented in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Because Appellant failed to raise his "preservation" issue in his concise statement, it is also waived for purposes of our review. See Castillo, supra. Moreover, even if Appellant had properly preserved these claims, they would merit no relief.
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). 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 PCRA relief, and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012); Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 764, 956 A.2d 433 (2008).
The law presumes counsel has rendered effective assistance. Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 695, 871 A.2d 189 (2005). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 707, 940 A.2d 365 (2007). The petitioner must demonstrate: "(1) the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) ...counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his...action or inaction; and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different." Id. at 880. "The petitioner bears the burden of proving all three prongs of the test." Id. "If a petitioner fails to plead or meet any elements of the [ineffectiveness] test, his claim must fail." Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1272 (Pa.Super. 2010). See also Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 362, 30 A.3d 1111, 1128 (2011) ().
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Giovanni O.Campbell, we would affirm on the basis of the PCRA court's opinion. The PCRA court comprehensively addresses and properly disposes of Appellant's issues. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed February 13, 2017, at 3-8) (addressing thoroughly Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement claim and appellate issue and finding both meritless). The record supports the PCRA court's rationale, and we see no reason to disturb it. Therefore, if Appellant had properly preserved his issues for our review, then we would affirm based on the PCRA court's opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See generally In re K.L.S., 594 Pa. 194, 197 n.3, 934 A.2d 1244, 1246 n.3 (2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial