J-S01005-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALEXI SANTIO DELMORAL

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 969 MDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 31, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001140-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 27, 2017

Appellant, Alexi Santio Delmoral, appeals from the order entered in the 

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his first petition brought 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

In its opinion filed on May 31, 2016, the PCRA court fully and correctly 

set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case.2 Therefore, 

we have no reason to restate them. 

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

2 We make the following corrections to the PCRA court’s opinion: In addition 

to Appellant’s convictions for aggravated assault and recklessly endangering 

another person, the jury convicted Appellant of two counts of persons not to 

possess firearms. This Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on 

June 8, 2012 (not July 17, 2012); and our Supreme Court denied allowance 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S01005-17

- 2 -

Appellant raises one issue for our review: 

DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER THE [PCRA] BY 

CONCLUDING THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT 

INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A PRE-SENTENCE 

INVESTIGATION?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to 

examining whether the record evidence supports the court’s determination 

and whether the court’s decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. 

Ford, 947 A.2d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 779, 959 

A.2d 319 (2008). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the 

PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings. 

Commonwealth v. Carr, 768 A.2d 1164 (Pa.Super. 2001). If the record 

supports a post-conviction court’s credibility determination, it is binding on 

the appellate court. Commonwealth v. Dennis, 609 Pa. 442, 17 A.3d 297 

(2011).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Scott A. 

Evans, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The PCRA court 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

of appeal on May 14, 2013 (not June 12, 2013). See Commonwealth v. 

Delmoral, 53 A.3d 926 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 695, 67 

A.3d 793 (2013). Although the PCRA court sometimes refers to Appellant’s 

current petition as a “second” PCRA petition, the current petition is 

Appellant’s first PCRA petition following the date Appellant’s judgment of 

sentence became final. 
J-S01005-17

- 3 -

opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the question 

presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed September 1, 2016, at 1; 

Opinion in Support of Denial of PCRA Relief, filed May 31, 2016, at 2-5) 

(finding:3trial counsel testified Appellant was aware he faced 10-year 

mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated assault conviction as second 

strike offense under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714; counsel and Appellant discussed 

potential mandatory minimum sentence prior to trial; counsel stated 

Appellant was aware court could impose consecutive sentences for 

Appellant’s other convictions; counsel testified his practice is to inform 

clients about option of requesting pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”), 

particularly where significant prison time is possible; counsel said he 

informed Appellant that he could request PSI, but Appellant “made it pretty 

clear that he just wanted to proceed to sentencing and get it over with”; trial 

counsel’s testimony was credible; sentencing transcript confirms Appellant’s 

waiver of PSI was voluntary; sentencing transcript also makes clear 

____________________________________________

3 The Commonwealth claims Appellant waived his issue on appeal due to 

vagueness in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement. The record shows 

Appellant withdrew all but one issue prior to the PCRA hearing. Thus, the 

PCRA court had no doubt about what Appellant sought to challenge on 

appeal and adequately addressed Appellant’s issue in its opinions. In this 

scenario, we decline to find waiver. See Commonwealth v. Laboy, 594 

Pa. 411, 936 A.2d 1058 (2007) (holding appellate court should conduct 

merits review of claim raised on appeal notwithstanding vagueness in Rule 

1925(b) statement, where case is relatively straightforward, trial court 

readily understood appellant’s claim, and trial court addressed claim in 

substantial detail in its opinion).
J-S01005-17

- 4 -

Appellant understood he would receive mandatory minimum sentence of 10 

years’ imprisonment; trial court had all pertinent information prior to 

imposing sentence; Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks 

arguable merit). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s 

opinions. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/27/2017