J-S30039-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN MICHAEL TEDESCO 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 96 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 9, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-45-CR-0002228-2013

BEFORE: STABILE, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2022

John Michael Tedesco (Tedesco) appeals an order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Monroe County (PCRA court) quashing a subpoena and 

denying post-conviction relief.1 We affirm.

In 2013, Tedesco and his wife, Tina Tedesco, were charged with several

offenses in connection with the death of Barbara Rabins, a dependent person 

in their care. Following a jury trial, Tedesco was found guilty of third-degree 

murder; neglect of a care-dependent person; theft by unlawful taking; theft 

by failure to make required disposition of funds; and tampering with physical 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

In Pennsylvania, all post-conviction claims collaterally attacking a judgment 

of sentence are governed by the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 

§§ 9541-9546 (PCRA).
J-S30039-22

- 2 -

evidence.2 He was also convicted of conspiracy to commit each of those 

offenses,3 except for the tampering count.

Tedesco was sentenced on October 26, 2015, to an aggregate prison

term of 15.25 years to 30.5 years. A panel of this Court affirmed the judgment 

of sentence on direct appeal, see Commonwealth v. Tedesco, 787 EDA 

2016 (Pa. Super. February 13, 2017) (unpublished memorandum), and the 

Pennsylvania Supreme denied allocatur on September 19, 2017. See 

Commonwealth v. Tedesco, 168 A.3d 326 (Pa. 2017). The United States 

Supreme Court denied Tedesco’s petition for writ of certiorari on April 30, 

2018.

Tedesco timely filed a PCRA petition within one year of that latter date,

on February 26, 2019. He then filed an amended petition on September 8, 

2021. The PCRA court offered to appoint counsel, but Tedesco exercised his 

right to proceed pro se. In his amended petition, Tedesco stated that the 

conspiracy charges on the four counts were duplicative and in violation of the 

prohibition against double jeopardy. He claimed that the Commonwealth had 

maliciously prosecuted him by adding these counts, and that prosecutors had 

withheld evidence of their misconduct in doing so.

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c), 2713(a)(1), 3921(a), 3927(a), and 4910(1), 

respectively.

3 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
J-S30039-22

- 3 -

To prove his allegations of misconduct, malfeasance and perjury on the 

part of the Commonwealth, Tedesco subpoenaed the assistant district 

attorney who had prosecuted the case at trial, compelling the prosecutor to 

testify at an evidentiary hearing before the PCRA. The Commonwealth moved 

to quash the subpoena and the PCRA court granted that motion on December 

8, 2021. See Commonwealth Motion to Quash, 12/8/2021, at 1-2. The 

evidentiary hearing was held on December 23, 2021, and Tedesco offered no 

evidence to the PCRA court showing how the testimony of the prosecutor could 

possibly advance a cogent post-conviction claim.4

On December 23, 2021, Tedesco appealed the order quashing the 

subpoena, and the appeal was perfected when the PCRA court entered a final 

order dismissing Tedesco’s PCRA petition on January 10, 2022.5 The PCRA 

court submitted a 1925(a) opinion giving the reasons why the order should be 

affirmed. See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/10/2022, at 1-7.

____________________________________________

4 On August 23, 2022, Tedesco moved this Court to remand the case to the

PCRA court so that Tedesco may file a new 1925(b) statement raising

additional appellate issues. The only stated ground for the motion is that the

PCRA court did not afford Tedesco advance notice of a summary dismissal

under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. However, this Rule entitles a PCRA petitioner to

advance notice of dismissal where an evidentiary hearing is not held. In this

case, the PCRA court dismissed Tedesco’s PCRA petition only after holding an

evidentiary hearing on December 23, 2021. Thus, Tedesco’s motion for a

remand was denied.

5 Under Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5), a notice of appeal filed in response to a 

determination prior to the issuance of an appealable order will be deemed filed 

on the date that the final order is subsequently entered.
J-S30039-22

- 4 -

Tedesco now raises a single issue in his pro se amended brief – whether 

the trial court abused its discretion in quashing his subpoena to have an 

assistant district attorney testify at the evidentiary hearing held on December 

23, 2021. See Appellant’s Brief at 4. According to Tedesco, the testimony of 

this witness was critical for the development of evidence proving that his 

convictions resulted from an illegal amendment of the conspiracy charges in 

the underlying criminal case.

At the outset, we note that a trial court may decline to enforce a 

subpoena at its discretion. See Commonwealth v. McFalls, 251 A.3d 1286 

(Pa. Super. 2021); Commonwealth v. Mucci, 143 A.3d 399, 411-12 (Pa. 

Super. 2016); see also Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 

A.2d 1117, 1125 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Generally, on review of an order 

concerning discovery, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion 

standard.”). A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless 

the record establishes that the decision was “manifestly unreasonable or the 

result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Commonwealth v. Woodard, 

129 A.3d 480, 494 (Pa. 2015).

In light of the undisputed record facts, we find that the PCRA court acted 

within its discretion in quashing the subpoena. First, the testimony of the 

prosecutor would not have been relevant at the evidentiary hearing. The gist 

of Tedesco’s claim seems to be that the Commonwealth had overcharged him 

with multiple conspiracy counts that were not included in the initial charging 
J-S30039-22

- 5 -

document and not supported by the evidence relayed to the magisterial 

district judge at the preliminary hearing.

However, this same issue was previously and fully litigated in Tedesco’s 

direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Tedesco, 787 EDA 2016, at **1-2 

(Pa. Super. February 13, 2017) (unpublished memorandum); 

Commonwealth v. Tedesco, 168 A.3d 326 (Pa. 2017) (denying allocatur). 

The PCRA provides that a petitioner may only be eligible for relief on postconviction claims that have not already been previously litigated on the merits 

in the highest appellate court in which review could be obtained as a matter 

of right. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3).

Tedesco’s purpose in having the prosecutor testify at the evidentiary 

hearing was to advance a claim that had already been fully litigated. The 

PCRA court, therefore, quashed a subpoena as to a witness whose testimony 

would not have been germane to a PCRA claim which could have afforded 

Tedesco relief. Thus, the PCRA court clearly acted within its discretion in 

quashing the subpoena, and the order on review must stand.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/8/2022