J-S13012-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KEVIN JULY,

Appellant No. 1198 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 21, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002733-2008

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 17, 2017

Appellant, Kevin July, appeals pro se from the post-conviction court’s 

March 21, 2016 order denying his first petition filed under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. After careful 

review, we affirm.

Appellant presents the following five issues for our review:

1) Did the trial court err in its instruction to the jury as to the 

charge of Attempted Murder in the First Degree?

2) Was trial counsel ineffective in failing to obtain the full 

Discovery or raising a claim in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963)[,] against the Commonwealth?

3) Was appellate counsel ineffective in litigating that the 

evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the guilty 

verdict?

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13012-17

- 2 -

4) Was court[-]appointed PCRA counsel ineffective by failing to 

adequately communicate with [] Appellant or by failing to amend 

the PCRA Petition to include additional claims raised by [] 

Appellant?

5) Did the [PCRA] court err by failing to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing prior to dismissing the PCRA Petition?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Our standard of review regarding an order denying post-conviction 

relief under the PCRA is whether the determination of the court is supported 

by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. 

Ragan, 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). This Court grants great deference 

to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb those findings 

merely because the record could support a contrary holding. 

Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2001). 

Here, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, 

and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and 

well-crafted opinion of the Honorable Leon W. Tucker of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We conclude that Judge Tucker’s 

extensive, well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented 

by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own and affirm the 

order denying Appellant’s PCRA petition on that basis.1

____________________________________________

1 We add one comment regarding the first issue raised by Appellant. 

Therein, Appellant contends that his trial counsel acted ineffectively by not 

objecting to a certain jury instruction provided by the trial court. However, 

in Appellant’s PCRA petition, and in his amended petition, Appellant did not 

frame this issue as an ineffectiveness claim; instead, he simply contended 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S13012-17

- 3 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/17/2017

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

that the trial court erred by providing the at-issue jury instruction. See 

PCRA Petition, 1/17/13, at 3; Amended PCRA Petition, 9/16/15, at 2-4. The 

PCRA court concluded, and we agree, that Appellant waived his claim of trial 

court error by failing to raise it on direct appeal. See PCRA Court Opinion, 

7/7/16, at 9-10; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3) (stating that to be 

eligible for PCRA relief, the petitioner must prove his claim was not waived); 

42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b) (stating that, “[f]or purposes of this subchapter, an 

issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before 

trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state post[-

]conviction proceeding”). To the extent Appellant now attempts to argue, 

for the first time on appeal, that his challenge to the court’s jury instruction 

is really an attack on the effectiveness of his trial counsel, this argument is 

also waived, as it was not raised before the PCRA court. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) 

(“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for 

the first time on appeal.”). 
Circulated 03/21/2017 09:53 AM