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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 aggregate of 48 1⁄2 - 103 

years imprisonment. This Court affirmed appellant’s judgment of sentence 

on direct appeal. He filed a timely PCRA petition and two amended PCRA 

petitions through court-appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, 

the court denied PCRA relief. Appellant filed a timely 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 raising several claims 

of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Having examined the record, the briefs of the parties, and the 

applicable law, and the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable 

Bradford Charles of the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, we 

conclude that Judge Bradford’s opinion correctly disposes of 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 interrogation 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 volunteered that he would 

remain and continue to answer questions; trial counsel not ineffective for 

failing to raise suppression issue on direct appeal, where court credited trial 

counsel’s testimony that appellant did not instruct him to raise this issue on 

direct appeal, and since issue was meritless for the reasons provided above; 

trial counsel not ineffective for failing to hire an expert to show that the lack 

of physical evidence negates a finding of sexual abuse, where record from 

PCRA evidentiary hearing shows that neither trial counsel nor PCRA counsel 

were aware of any expert who would testify in support of appellant’s 

position, and where expert that appellant requested was not qualified to 

provide this opinion; trial counsel not ineffective for failing to provide 
J-S48018-14

- 3 - 

interpreter every time he met with appellant, where court credited trial 

counsel’s testimony during PCRA hearing that he and appellant understood 

each other every time they met, appellant’s testimony during PCRA hearing 

indicated that he understood counsel, and where appellant never exhibited 

any inability to understand courtroom proceedings). 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/22/2014