J-S63025-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

YAASMIYN STRADFORD-COLEMAN

Appellant No. 1031 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 13, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0004469-2013

BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 27, 2015

Appellant, Yaasmiyn Stradford-Coleman, appeals from the March 13, 

2015 order dismissing, without a hearing, her first petition for relief filed 

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

9546. After careful review, we affirm.

We summarize the relevant procedural background of this case as 

follows. On February 11, 2014, Appellant entered a nolo contendere plea to 

one count of endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC).1 That same day, 

the trial court imposed a sentence of two years’ probation. Appellant did not 

file a direct appeal with this Court.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1).
J-S63025-15

- 2 -

Appellant filed a timely, counseled PCRA petition on January 8, 2015. 

The Commonwealth filed its answer on February 11, 2015. The next day, on 

February 12, 2015, the PCRA court entered an order notifying Appellant of 

its intention to dismiss her petition without a hearing pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1). Appellant filed a response 

to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice on February 13, 2015. On March 13, 

2015, the PCRA court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition. 

On April 13, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.2

On appeal, Appellant presents one issue for our review.

[W]hether the [PCRA c]ourt abused its discretion 

when it dismissed [Appellant]’s PCRA petition and 

amended PCRA petition without a hearing[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review. “In reviewing 

the denial of PCRA relief, we examine whether the PCRA court’s 

determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “The scope of review is limited to the findings 

of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most 

____________________________________________

2 We note that the 30th day fell on Sunday, April 12, 2015. Therefore, 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed on Monday, April 13, 2015. See 

generally 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908. We further observe that Appellant and the 

PCRA court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1925.
J-S63025-15

- 3 -

favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level.” Commonwealth v. 

Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). “It is well-settled 

that a PCRA court’s credibility determinations are binding upon an appellate 

court so long as they are supported by the record.” Commonwealth v. 

Robinson, 82 A.3d 998, 1013 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). However, this 

Court reviews the PCRA court’s legal conclusions de novo. Commonwealth 

v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080, 1084 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

Appellant’s claim asserts that her trial counsel provided ineffective 

assistance. The Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides in 

relevant part that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 

right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”3 U.S. Const. 

amend. VI. The Supreme Court has long held that the Counsel Clause 

includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel. See generally 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984); Commonwealth v. 

Pierce, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987).

In analyzing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, “[c]ounsel is 

presumed effective, and [appellant] bears the burden of proving otherwise.” 

Fears, supra at 804 (brackets in original; citation omitted). To prevail on 

____________________________________________

3

Likewise, Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states in 

relevant part, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be 

heard by himself and his counsel ....” Pa. Const. art. I, § 9. Our Supreme 

Court has held that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not provide greater 

protection than the Sixth Amendment. Pierce, supra at 976.
J-S63025-15

- 4 -

any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCRA petitioner must allege 

and prove “(1) the underlying legal claim was of arguable merit; (2) counsel 

had no reasonable strategic basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the 

petitioner was prejudiced—that is, but for counsel’s deficient stewardship, 

there is a reasonable likelihood the outcome of the proceedings would have 

been different.” Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253, 260 (Pa. 

2013). “A claim of ineffectiveness will be denied if the petitioner’s evidence 

fails to satisfy any one of these prongs.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 80 

A.3d 415, 427 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Elliott v. 

Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 50 (2014).

We also note that 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. Commonwealth v. 

Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 604 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Roney 

v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 56 (2014).

[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 

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.
J-S63025-15

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal 

citations omitted). “[A]n evidentiary hearing is not meant to function as a 

fishing expedition for any possible evidence that may support some 

speculative claim of ineffectiveness.” Roney, supra at 605 (citation 

omitted).

In her sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that trial counsel gave 

her erroneous advice that the fact of her nolo contendere plea would not be 

admissible against her in future dependency or termination proceedings.4 

This issue is governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 410, which provides 

as follows.

Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related 

Statements

(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, 

evidence of the following is not admissible against 

the defendant who made the plea or participated in 

the plea discussions:

____________________________________________

4 To the extent Appellant avers counsel erroneously advised her that the 

factual basis for the nolo contendere plea would not be admissible against 

her, we note Appellant raised this issue for the first time in her “amended” 

PCRA petition filed in response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice. See 

Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080, 1084-1085 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(stating, “a petitioner must request leave to amend his petition in his Rule 

907 response to raise new trial counsel ineffectiveness claims[]”); accord 

Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 923 A.2d 466, 469 (Pa. Super. 2007), 

appeal denied, 934 A.2d 72 (Pa. 2007). Although Appellant titled her 

response as an amended petition, she never sought leave from the PCRA 

court to amend her petition. The PCRA court’s order on appeal states that it 

was only considering her PCRA petition “filed January 8, 2015[.]” PCRA 

Court Order, 3/13/15, at 1. As a result, Appellant has waived these 

additional claims on appeal.
J-S63025-15

- 6 -

...

(2) a nolo contendere plea;

...

Pa.R.E. 410(a)(2). As the PCRA court and the Commonwealth point out, 

Rule 410(a)(2) plainly prohibits the introduction of a nolo contendere plea. 

That is the end of the inquiry for this appeal. Counsel’s advice was not 

legally erroneous, and therefore, Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim lacks arguable merit. PCRA Court Opinion, 5/20/15, at 5-6; 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 8. 

However, Appellant argues that despite counsel’s advice to the 

contrary, the agency will attempt, or has attempted to introduce Appellant’s 

nolo contendere plea. Appellant’s Brief at 11. Appellant does not state, and 

the certified record does not indicate, what the status of any dependency or 

termination proceedings are, or whether this issue arose therein. However, 

the fact that CYS might attempt to do what counsel told Appellant it cannot 

do does not render counsel’s advice legally erroneous.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it dismissed Appellant’s petition without an evidentiary 

hearing. See Elliott, supra; Roney, supra; Simpson, supra. 

Accordingly, the PCRA court’s March 13, 2015 order is affirmed.

Order affirmed.
J-S63025-15

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/27/2015