J-S48024- 14

1

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JESUS MORALES-VAZQUEZ Appellant No. 47 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 10 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 38

- CR -0001898-2009, CP- 38 -0001899-2009,

CP

- 38 -1901-2009, CP- 38 -1908-2009 BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J. * MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2014 Jesus Morales- Vazquez (“appellant”) appeals from an order denying his motion for relief under the Post- Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). We affirm. A jury found appellant guilty of a litany of sexual offenses against his children, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggre gate of 48 1⁄2 - 103 years imprisonment. This Court affirmed appellant’s ju dgment of sentence on direct appeal. He filed a timely PCRA petition a nd two amended PCRA petitions through court-appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied PCRA relief. Appellant filed a tim ely notice of appeal and a

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J-S48018- 14

- 2 -

timely statement of matters complained of on appeal r aising several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Having examined the record, the briefs of the partie s, and the applicable law, and the thorough and well-reasoned op inion of the Honorable Bradford Charles of the Court of Common Pleas of Leba non County, we conclude that Judge Bradford’s opinion correctly disposes o f appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion

as our own. See Trial Court Opinion (trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file motion to suppress appellant’s custodial confession on the ground that his breathing problems at the time of in terrogation made confession involuntary, since officers properly Mirandized him, never threatened him, offered to stop questioning him when he mentioned an attorney, and continued to question because he voluntee red that he would remain and continue to answer questions; trial counsel no t ineffective for failing to raise suppression issue on direct appeal, wher e court credited trial counsel’s t estimony that appellant did not instruct him to raise this issue on direct appeal, and since issue was meritless for the reason s provided above; trial counsel not ineffective for failing to hire an e xpert to show that the lack of physical evidence negates a finding of sexual abuse, where record from PCRA evidentiary hearing shows that neither trial coun sel nor PCRA counsel were aware of any expert who would testify in support of appellant’s position, and where expert that appellant requested w as not qualified to provide this opinion; trial counsel not ineffective fo r failing to provideJ-S48018- 14

- 3 -

interpreter every time he met with appellant, where court credited trial counsel’s testimony during PCRA hearing that he and app ellant understood each other every time they me t, appellant’s testimony during PCRA hearing indicated that he understood counsel, and where appella nt never exhibited any inability to understand courtroom proceedings). Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/22/2014