J-S09045-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JAMES JERMAINE POTTS, JR.,

Appellant No. 2453 EDA 2016

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 22, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-15-CR-0001123-2012

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2017

Appellant, James Jermaine Potts, Jr., appeals pro se from the order of 

July 22, 2016, which dismissed, without a hearing, his first petition brought 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the dismissal of the PCRA 

petition.

We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter 

from this Court’s March 3, 2015 memorandum on direct appeal and our 

independent review of the certified record. 

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on January 27, 2012, Towayne 

Uqdah, his cousin Andre Tutt and Kevin Morgan were walking 

toward Morgan’s car, which was parked on a street in West 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S09045-17

- 2 -

Chester. Two men ran up to them, yelled at them not to move, 

and then started shooting. Tutt ran away and was shot once. 

Uqdah was shot nine times, and died from his injuries.

Police arrested [Appellant] and Greg Arrington for the 

shootings. Arrington subsequently pled guilty to the murder of 

Uqdah.

[Appellant’s] trial began on September 30, 2013, and

ended on October 3, 2013, when the jury found him guilty of 

[murder in the first degree, two counts of attempt to commit 

criminal homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, possessing 

an instrument of crime, five counts of recklessly endangering 

another person, and criminal conspiracy.1] On November 26, 

2013, the [trial] court sentenced [Appellant] to [not less than] 

life imprisonment plus [not less than twenty-seven nor more 

than fifty-four] years’ incarceration.

(Commonwealth v. Potts, 2015 WL 7458798, at *1 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(unpublished memorandum)).

On March 3, 2015, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. 

(See id.). Appellant did not seek leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court.

On May 1, 2015, Appellant, acting pro se, filed a petition for 

transcripts and other court documents. The trial court denied the petition on 

July 29, 2015. On March 4, 2016, Appellant, acting pro se, filed the instant, 

timely PCRA petition. On March 7, 2016, the PCRA court appointed counsel. 

On April 11, 2016, Appellant, despite being represented by counsel, filed a 

pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On April 29, 2016, the PCRA 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 901, 2702(a), 907, 2705, and 903, respectively. 
J-S09045-17

- 3 -

court directed that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be treated as a 

PCRA petition and forwarded it to counsel.

On May 18, 2016, PCRA counsel filed a motion to withdraw and 

submitted a Turner/Finley letter addressing issued raised in both PCRA 

petitions.2 On June 14, 2016, the PCRA court issued notice of its intent to 

dismiss the petition pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 

907(1). On June 16, 2016, Appellant, despite being represented by counsel, 

filed a second petition for transcripts and other court documents and 

records. On July 1, 2016, Appellant, acting pro se, filed a response to the 

Rule 907 notice. On July 21, 2016, the PCRA court granted counsel’s motion 

to withdraw. On July 22, 2016, the PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition 

for transcripts and denied his PCRA petition. The instant, timely appeal 

followed.3

On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review.

I. Did the PCRA court’s denial of the trial record deprive 

Appellant of the right to meaningfully challenge PCRA 

counsel’s no-merit letter?

____________________________________________

2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); 

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

3 On August 10, 2016, the PCRA court directed Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. See id. On September 28, 

2016, the PCRA court filed an opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). 
J-S09045-17

- 4 -

II. Did the PCRA court’s denial of the trial record deprive 

Appellant of the right to vindicate his Sixth Amendment 

right to the effective assistance of trial counsel?

III. Did the PCRA court’s denial of the trial record deny 

Appellant the right to proceed pro se during the PCRA 

proceedings?

(Appellant’s Brief, at 4) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We review the denial of a post-conviction petition to determine 

whether the record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its order 

is otherwise free of legal error. See Commonwealth v. Faulk, 21 A.3d 

1196, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2011). To be eligible for relief pursuant to the 

PCRA, Appellant must establish, inter alia, that his conviction or sentence 

resulted from one or more of the enumerated errors or defects found in 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). He must also 

establish that the issues raised in the PCRA petition have not been 

previously litigated or waived. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). An 

allegation of error “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 postconviction proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b). Further, 

. . . a PCRA petitioner is not automatically entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing. We review the PCRA court’s decision 

dismissing a petition without a hearing for an abuse of 

discretion. 

[T]he right to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition is not absolute. It is within the 

PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a hearing if 

the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no 

support either in the record or other evidence. It is 
J-S09045-17

- 5 -

the responsibility of the reviewing court on appeal to 

examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in 

light of the record certified before it in order to 

determine if the PCRA court erred in its 

determination that there were no genuine issues of 

material fact in controversy and in denying relief 

without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations 

omitted).

Initially, we note that all of Appellant’s issues are interrelated, each 

claiming that because the PCRA court denied his motion for transcripts he 

was unable to prosecute his PCRA petition. Therefore, we will address them 

together.

It is well settled that a defendant need not possess transcripts and 

other court documents before pursuing post-conviction relief. See 

Commonwealth v. Crider, 735 A.2d 730, 733 (Pa. Super. 1999). 

Discovery in PCRA proceedings is governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 902(E)(1), which states in pertinent part, “[e]xcept as provided in 

paragraph (E)(2),[4] no discovery shall be permitted at any stage of the 

proceedings, except upon leave of court after a showing of exceptional 

circumstances.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(1). Appellant has not met this hurdle.

____________________________________________

4 Relating to death penalty cases. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(2).
J-S09045-17

- 6 -

In his brief, Appellant vaguely states he is certain that if supplied with 

transcripts and the myriad of other documents he requested,5 he will be able 

to “[scour] the record in search of claims warranting reversal of the 

judgment.” (Appellant’s Brief, at 10). He notes his belief that collateral 

review “entails” a “fishing expedition” wherein he will search for a claim. 

(Id.). These bald assertions do not convince us that exceptional 

circumstances existed to compel the PCRA court to grant Appellant’s broadbased discovery motion. See Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 590-

91 (Pa. 2000) (affirming denial of discovery request during PCRA 

proceedings and stating, “[w]e will not sanction a fishing expedition when 

[a]ppellant fails to provide even a minimal basis for his claim.”); 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1175 (Pa. 1999) (affirming 

denial of discovery request for broad-based discovery in PCRA proceedings 

where appellant did not cite to any specific ground supporting request). 

Thus, Appellant has not shown that the PCRA court erred in denying his 

request for discovery.6

____________________________________________

5

In his petition, Appellant sought all transcripts, including preliminary 

hearing and motion hearing transcripts, all motions filed in the case, all trial 

court opinions, and all grand jury transcripts. (See Petition for Transcripts, 

Other Records, and Documents, 6/16/16, at 2).

6 We note that Appellant does not challenge the denial of his PCRA petition 

on any grounds other than the denial of his petition for transcripts. (See 

Appellant’s Brief, at 4).
J-S09045-17

- 7 -

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the PCRA 

court’s dismissal of Appellant’s PCRA petition without a hearing. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2017