J-S07025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROBERT BASS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 946 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 25, 2022,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014950-2012.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MARCH 30, 2023

Robert Bass appeals from the order dismissing without a hearing his first 

petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 9541–9546. He challenges the effectiveness of PCRA counsel. We affirm.

The PCRA court set out the procedural history in this case:

On November 25, 2012, [Bass] was arrested and charged 

with Firearms Not To Be Carried Without A License, 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] 

§ 6106(a). On March 13, 2013, he entered a negotiated guilty 

plea before [the trial court] and was sentenced to time-served to 

twenty-three months [of] confinement plus three years [of] 

consecutive probation.

On March 31, 2015, while on probation, [Bass] was arrested 

in conjunction with a home invasion shooting and was charged 

with multiple offenses, including Attempted Murder and Firearms 

Not to Be Carried Without A License. On April 29, in front of Judge 

Scott O’Keefe, he was convicted after a bench trial of these two 

crimes and several others. On August 26, 2016, Judge O’Keefe 

sentenced [Bass] to a total of ten to twenty years [of] 

incarceration plus ten years [of] consecutive probation. He also 
J-S07025-23

- 2 -

sentenced [Bass] to two to four years [of] incarceration for 

possessing a homemade knife in his prison cell two weeks 

earlier.[1]

On August 29, 2016, [Bass] was scheduled to appear before 

this Court for a violation of probation (“VOP”) hearing based on 

his new attempted murder conviction. This hearing had previously 

been postponed several times while that case was pending, and 

the Defender Association had represented him at those listings. 

On August 26, 2016, three days before the VOP hearing, [Bass] 

retained private counsel, Jason Kadish, Esq., to represent him. 

However, Mr. Kadish was unavailable on the 29th, so the Court 

reappointed the Defender[] Association and rescheduled the 

hearing for August 31, [2016,] the Court’s last day in the Criminal 

Division. At that time, with [Bass] being represented by Abby 

Heller, Esq., of the Defender Association, the Court found him to 

be in direct violation of his probation and sentenced him to thirtysix to seventy-five months [of] incarceration. He did not appeal.

[More than a few years later, on] March 8, 2021, [Bass] filed 

a pro se PCRA petition. Therein, he claimed that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel in that neither Mr. Kadish nor Ms. 

Heller filed an appeal of his VOP sentence despite the fact that he 

asked them to. He also seemed to complain that Mr. Kadish had 

not attended his VOP hearing.

The Court appointed Peter Levin, Esq. to represent [Bass]. 

On October 28, 2021, Mr. Levin submitted a Finley[2]letter, 

concluding that [Bass’] claims were time-barred and that he was 

therefore unable to file an amended PCRA on [Bass’] behalf. On 

February 25, 2022, the Court dismissed the petition without a 

hearing. [Bass] filed a timely appeal pro se.

PCRA Court Opinion, 8/1/22, at 1–2. Although not ordered to do so, Bass filed 

a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal on May 12, 2022. 

The PCRA court entered an opinion on August 1, 2022.

____________________________________________

1 Bass also filed a PCRA petition in this attempted murder case, which we 

address at Docket No. 420 EDA 2021.

2 Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
J-S07025-23

- 3 -

Bass now raises one issue: “[Bass] was denied due process of the law 

by the ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel in failing to develop and advance 

meritorious claims during initial collateral relief proceedings.” Bass’ Brief at 4.

This claim concerns the effectiveness of Bass’ PCRA counsel, Attorney 

Levin. Bass states that he asked Attorney Levin to litigate prior counsel’s 

ineffectiveness in failing to file a requested appeal, such as by calling prior 

counsel as witnesses in a PCRA hearing, with the goal of reinstating his direct 

appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Id. at 11–13. He argues that Attorney Levin 

was ineffective because he instead filed a no-merit letter and did not apprise 

Bass of the status of his PCRA petition. Id. at 14–19.3

A PCRA petitioner may litigate the effectiveness of PCRA counsel at the 

first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 

261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa. 2021). If the record on appeal is sufficient to dispose 

of such a claim, we will resolve the claim without the need to remand. See

id. at 402 (citing Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 577 (Pa. 2013)). 

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove three 

elements: “(1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no 

reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3) that 

the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error.” 

Commonwealth v. Drummond, 285 A.3d 625, 634 (Pa. 2022) (citing 

____________________________________________

3 Bass argues under the “plain error” standard, which Pennsylvania courts do 

not apply. Commonwealth v. King, 234 A.3d 549, 563 (Pa. 2020) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Hays, 218 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa. 2019) (Saylor, C.J., 

concurring)).
J-S07025-23

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1117 (Pa. 2012)). Counsel is 

not ineffective for failing to advance a meritless claim. Commonwealth v. 

Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1211 (Pa. 2006).

Here, the record is sufficient to resolve Bass’ claim without remand. 

Bradley, 261 A.3d at 402. Any PCRA petition must be filed within one year 

of the date the petitioner’s judgment of sentence became final, unless one of 

three statutory exceptions applies. Commonwealth v. Howard, 285 A.3d 

652, 657–58 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(i)–(iii)). 

Here, Bass’ judgment of sentence became final on September 30, 2016, at 

the conclusion of his time for filing a notice of appeal. His PCRA petition, filed 

over four years later, was facially untimely. Attorney Levin properly assessed

that Bass failed to meet any of the PCRA timeliness exceptions. No-Merit 

Letter, 10/28/21, at 6–7

4; see PCRA Court Opinion, 8/1/22, at 5. Attorney 

Levin was not ineffective for failing to advance a time-barred claim. See

Spotz, supra. We will therefore affirm the dismissal of Bass’ petition.

Affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 Attorney Levin complied with applicable requirements to withdraw based on 

this no-merit letter. Finley, supra.
J-S07025-23

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/30/2023