J

- S84019

- 17

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

v.

MAURICE ADRIAN WILKINS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 746 MDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order April 25, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 06

- CR

- 0003314

- 2013

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2018 Maurice Adrian Wilkins appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, denying his pro se petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546. A fter review, we affirm. The trial court summarized the relevant procedural history of this case
in its March 2 8, 2017 order and notice of intent to dismiss Wilkins’ PCRA petition: On or about July 12, 2013, [Wilkins] was charged with three counts of [ m ] ur der of the [ f ] irst [ d ] egree, th ree counts of [ m ] urder of the [ t ] hird [ d ] egree, two counts of [ c ] riminal [ c ] onspiracy, three counts of [ a ] ggravated [ a ] ssault, one count of [ p ] ersons not to [ p ] ossess, [ u ] se, [ m ] anufacture , [ c ] ontrol, [ s ] ell or [ t ] ransfer [ f ] ire arms, one count of [ p ] o ss essing [ i ] nstruments of [ c ] rime, one count of [k]idnapping and two counts of [c]riminal [s]olicitation. On October 21, 2015, [Wilkins] entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to three counts of [m] urder of theJ

- S84019

- 17

- 2

-

[f] irst [d] egree. O n the same day, this [c]ourt se ntenced [ Wilkin s ] to a life term of incarceration without possibility of parole, and all remaining charges were dropped. [Wilkins] did not pursue an appeal at this time. On February 8, 2016 , [Wilkins] filed the in stant, timely pro se [m]otion for [p]ost

- [c]onviction [c]ollateral [r]elief. On February 18, 2016, [the trial court] appointed Osmer Deming, Esquire, to serve as PCRA counsel for [Wilkins]. On March 21, 2016, Counsel Deming f iled a [p]etition for [e]xten sion of [t]ime to [f]ile an [a]mended PCRA [p]etition o r “[n]o [m]erit” [l]etter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A

. 2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). [The trial court] granted that petition on March 22, 2016. Counsel Deming filed six addition al [p]etitions for [e]xtension of [t]ime, which in each case [the trial court] granted. On March 2, 201 7, Counsel Deming f iled a “[n]o [m]erit” [l]etter [r]equesting [l]eave of [c]ourt to [w]ithdraw as [c]ounsel. Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss, 3/28/17, at 1

- 2. On March 16 , 2017, the trial court granted Counsel Deming’s petition for withdrawal

. On April 25, 2017, the trial court dismissed Wilkins’ PCRA petition, which he timely appealed on May 3, 2017. B oth Wilkins and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Wilkins raises the following issues:

1 . Whether trial counsel was ineffective due to conflict of interest , erroneous advice and poor performance ?
2 . Whether Wilkins’ guilty pl ea was unlawfully induced by duress from the vigorous assaults and threats by victim’s family and 31⁄2 year s of solitary confinement ?
3 . Whether there was a prejudicial conflict of interest by the trial court by dual representation, pretrial prejudice, bias treatment by the judge, and withheld evide nce against witness character? 4. Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a n evidentiary hearing?J

- S84019

- 17

- 3

-

Brief of Appellant, at 5 (re worded for clarity)

. Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is whether the record supports the PCRA court’s determination and whether the PCRA court’s determination is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Phillips , 31 A.3d 317, 319 (Pa. Super. 2011), citing Co mmonwealth v. Berry , 877 A.2d 479, 482 (Pa. Super. 2005). The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record. Id. , citing Commonwealth v. Carr , 768 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Wilki ns first claims that trial counsel was ineffective at the time of his plea and sentenc ing for (1) laboring under a conflict of interest, 1 and (2) inducing his guilty plea with false information regarding harmful DNA
evidence. The standard a petitioner must meet for PCRA relief when raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is well settled: A petitioner is eligible for PCRA relief only when he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the circumstances delineated in [42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542]. One of the grounds enumerated in [42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542] involves claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the PCRA provides relief to those individuals whose convictions or sentences re sulted from 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. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has interpreted that to mean

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
1 Eric Angeles, who the Commonwealth listed as a potential witness for the prosecution , procured representation from the same law firm that employed Wilkins’ tri al counsel.J

- S84019

- 17

- 4

-

that in order to obtain relief on a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove that: 1) the claim underlying the ineffectiveness claim has arguable merit; 2) counsel’s actions lacked any reasonable ba sis; and 3) counsel’s actions resulted in prejudice to petitioner. Commonwealth v. Cox , 983 A.2d 666, 678 (Pa. 2009). See also Commonwealth v. Lynch , 820 A.2d 728 (Pa. Super. 2003) (claims that counsel unlawfully induced defendant to plead guilty are revi ewable as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel). Wilkins entered a guilty plea to three counts of murder in the first degree. Thus, the only matters Wilkins may raise on appeal are the jurisdiction of the court, the validity of the guilty plea, an d the legality of the
sentence. Commonwealth v. Syno , 791 A.2d 363, 365 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). Therefore, in order to be successful on an ineffectiveness claim, Wilkins must prove that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness resulted in an
unknowi ng and involuntary plea. Commonwealth v. Yeager , 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted).
Wilkins also argues that his housing in solitary confinement prior to trial
and unidentified threats by the victim’s family caused him to plead guil ty involuntarily. Therefore, we address these claims together, as each implicates the voluntariness of Wilkins’ guilty plea.
Under the PCRA , a petitioner is eligible for relief if he pleads and proves by a preponderance of evidence that he has been convict ed of a crime for which he is currently serving a sentence and that his conviction has resulted from a plea of guilty unlawfully induced where circumstances make it likelyJ

- S84019

- 17

- 5

-

that the inducement caused the individual to plead guilty

. See Commonwealth v. Stark , 698 A.2d 1327 (Pa. Super. 1997). 42. Pa.C.S.A. 9543(a)(2)(iii). Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590 requires that a guilty plea be offered in open court and sets a procedure to determine voluntariness and whether a defendant is acting knowi ngly and intelligently. The trial court must
conduct a colloquy that includes , at a minimum, the following:

1. Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he or she is pleading guilty or nolo contendere?
2. Is there a factual basis for the plea?
3

. Does the defendant understand that he/she has the right to a trial by jury?
4

. Does the defendant understand that he/she is presumed innocent until found guilty?
5

. Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?
6

. Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement? Commonwealth v

. D’Collandfield , 805 A.2d 1244, n. 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). See Pa.R.Crim.P. 590

– Comment. Here, the record belies Wilkins’ claim that his guilty plea was involuntary. At his guilty plea, Wilkins recited in detail his account of the

ev ents leading up to the murder of three victims and stated on the record that his guilty plea was voluntary. See N.T. Guilty Plea, 11/21/16, at 12

- 17.J

- S84019

- 17

- 6

-

Specifically, Wilkins stated that he forwent his trial because he did not “want to put the [victim’s] fa mily through any grief,” and to “own up to what [he] had done.” Id. at 16. Moreover, Wilkins signed a written statement affirming that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea. There is no indication in the record that Wilkins’ guilty plea was involuntary, and therefore, his claim that trial counsel was ineffective is
meritless. 2 Yeager , supra
. Wilkins next claims that the trial court ’s partia lity to the victims prejudiced his defense.

As a general rule, when circumstances arise during the course of trial raising questions of the trial judge ’ s bias or impartiality, it is the duty of the party, who asserts that a judge should be disqualified, to allege by petition the bias, prejudice, or un fairness necessitating recusal. Furthermore, a j udge ’ s decision to continue presiding over a jury trial will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. In order to establish an abuse of discretion, the appellant must show something more than bias in the abstract; he must ordinarily demonstrate that the alleged bias of the judge infected the jury or otherwise deprived him of a fair trial. Commonwealth v. Hewett , 551 A.2d 1080, 1082 (Pa. Super. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis added)

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
2 Wilkins’ also argues that trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest at his guilty plea. However, even if trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest, Wilkins’ guilty plea invalidates any claim of error stemming from his preli minary hearing. Commonwealth v. Jones , 929 A.2d 205, 209 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted) (once a defendant has been convicted, deficiencies at the preliminary hearing are rendered immaterial). Therefore, this claim is meritless.J

- S84019

- 17

- 7

-

Here, Wilkins baldly assert s that the trial cou rt expressed bias by (1) denying his motion for a change in venue due to pretrial publicity, and (2) commenting on the video which purportedly showed Wilkins shooting into the car, killing two men. N.T. Guilty Plea, 11/21/16, at 16 (THE COURT: “I saw
the video in [ co - defendant ’ s ] trial. And clearly there’s no question that [the video] captured you shooting into the other car.”). Wilkins fails to establish the requisite bias, prejudice or unfairness to warrant recusal. The trial court’s comment regarding video evidence from Wilkins’ co

- defendant’s trial occurred after Wilkins tendered his guilty plea and provided a lengthy and unsolicited account of the murder, during which he admitted to shooting three or four times into a vehicle. Moreover, even if
Wil kins had established the requisite bias, prejudice or unfairness necessary to warrant recusal, he waived his right to file a recusal motion when he entered his guilty plea. See Commonwealth v. Jones , 929 A.2d 205 , 212 (Pa. 2007 ) (guilty plea constitutes waiver of all non

- jurisdictional defects and defenses). Last, Wilkins claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his PCRA petition without a hearing. The right to an evidentiary hearing on a post

- convi ction petition is not absolute. A PCRA court ma y decline to hold a hearing if the petitioner ’ s claim is patently frivolous and is without a trace of support in either the record or from other evidence. A reviewing court on appeal must examine each of the issues raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record in order to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.J

- S84019

- 17

- 8

-

Commonwealth v. Jordan , 772 A.2d 1011, 1014 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations omitt ed). Wilkins’ PCRA claims are meritless, and thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing his petition without a hearing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 03/20/2018