J-S10008-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL A. REAM 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1467 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 26, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0002050-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: MARCH 30, 2020

Michael A. Ream appeals from the order dismissing his first petition filed 

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

9546. Further, court appointed counsel, Kristopher George Accardi, Esquire, 

has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and a Turney/Finley1 “no-merit” 

letter. We affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. 

On January 22, 2019, Ream entered a guilty plea to one count of 

possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”) – Marijuana and one count of 

person not to possess firearms, and entered a nolo contendere plea to one 

count of PWID – Heroin2. He was sentenced the same day to an agreed upon 

____________________________________________

1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); 

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

2 Ream maintained that he possessed the heroin for personal use only. 
J-S10008-20

- 2 -

aggregate sentence of four and a half to nine years’ incarceration. Ream did

not file post-sentence motions or a direct appeal. 

On April 30, 2019, Ream filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. In his 

petition, Ream alleged (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to 

provide him with full discovery, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure 

to advise him of his maximum possible sentence, (3) ineffective assistance of 

counsel for advising him to not cooperate with the drug task force, (4) 

ineffective assistance of counsel for promising admission into a drug treatment 

court, and (5) misconduct by the drug task force in the instant case, and 

committing perjury in other cases. The PCRA court appointed counsel to assist 

Ream with his PCRA petition. PCRA counsel subsequently filed a Finley “nomerit” letter and a motion to withdraw. The PCRA court issued notice of its 

intent to dismiss Ream’s petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. A hearing was 

held to address Ream’s filed objections. The court subsequently permitted 

counsel to withdraw and denied the petition. 

Ream timely filed a pro se notice of appeal, and subsequently requested 

appointment of counsel. Attorney Accardi was appointed, and in lieu of an 

advocate’s brief, has filed a Turner/Finley “no-merit” letter and a petition to 

withdraw as counsel. Thus, we must assess counsel’s assertion that the issues 

Ream wishes to raise have no merit pursuant to the following standards. 

The Turner/Finley decisions provide the manner for post[-] 

conviction counsel to withdraw from representation. The holdings 

of those cases mandate an independent review of the record by 

competent counsel before a PCRA court or [an] appellate court 

can authorize an attorney’s withdrawal. The necessary 
J-S10008-20

- 3 -

independent review requires counsel to file a “no-merit” letter 

detailing the nature and extent of his [or her] review and list each 

issue the petitioner wishes to have examined, explaining why 

those issues are meritless. The PCRA court, or an appellate court 

if the no-merit letter is filed before it, see Turner, supra, then 

must conduct its own independent evaluation of the record and 

agree with counsel that the petition is without merit[.]

[T]his Court [has] imposed additional requirements on counsel 

that closely track the procedure for withdrawing on direct appeal. 

. . . [C]ounsel is required to contemporaneously serve upon his 

[or her] client his [or her] no merit letter and application to 

withdraw along with a statement that if the court granted 

counsel’s withdraw request, the client may proceed pro se or with 

a privately retained attorney[.]

Commonwealth v. Reed, 107 A.3d 137, 140 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted) (some brackets in original). Attorney Accardi has served Ream with 

a copy of his no-merit letter, and the letter informs Ream of his right to retain 

private counsel or proceed pro se, and that he did not need to wait for this 

Court to rule on counsel’s petition to act. Ream has not filed a response.

“Our standard of review for issues arising from the denial of PCRA relief 

is well-settled. We must determine whether the PCRA court’s ruling is 

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Presley, 

193 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). 

Ream presents the following issues on appeal. 

I. Whether the Defendant, Michael Ream did not live at 940 Elm 

Street, which the York County Drug Task Force raided. If

Defendant did not live at this address, whether the search by the 

Drug Task Force was illegal?

II. Whether Adam Bruckhart has been charged with committing 

perjury and other related offenses and misconduct within his 

professional career as a Drug Task Force Agent within his duties, 
J-S10008-20

- 4 -

also whether other members of the Drug Task Force are under an 

ongoing investigation as well?

III. Whether Michael Ream was properly charged with the drug 

sale because the buy & bust was on Robert Howard and Robert 

Howard admitted that he made the drug sale?

IV. Whether the Honorable Harry M. Ness previously stated in 

Court that 940 Elm Street was not Michael Ream's permanent 

address and current residence?

V. Whether the Drug Task Force manipulated the Defendant's 

statements, when they stated that Michael Ream moved the gun 

multiple times, just to indicate that the defendant had the 

opportunity and access to the firearm?

VI. Whether the Drug Task Force Agency in York abused their 

integrity as Police Officers and put Michael Ream in a position 

where he thought he had to take a plea agreement when the 

owner of the gun was Khadijah Ream.

VII. Whether the York County Drug Task Force indicated that they 

had surveillance photos of the defendant making drug [sales] and 

withheld the photos from Michael Ream, a violation of Brady v. 

Maryland.

VIII. Whether a lab test was done on the gun to test for finger 

prints to see if Defendant actually handled the gun?

Trial Court Opinion, at 5-6 (issues edited from notice of appeal for clarity). 

We must first determine which, if any, of these issues Ream preserved 

for our review. 

The PCRA, however, procedurally bars claims of trial court error, 

by requiring a petitioner to show the allegation of error is not 

previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9543(a)(3), 9544. 

At the PCRA stage, claims of trial court error are either previously 

litigated (if raised on direct appeal) or waived (if not). 

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 260-61 (Pa. 2011) 

(rejecting claims of trial court error as either previously litigated 

where raised on direct appeal or waived where not raised direct 

appeal).
J-S10008-20

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 780 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(en banc). “[A]n issue is waived if the petitioner could have raised it but failed 

to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior 

state post conviction proceeding.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b). Ream could have 

raised all eight issues previously but failed to do so either before trial, or on 

direct appeal. Therefore, we find them waived. We also note that none of these 

claims are in Ream’s initial petition, and he has not sought leave to amend 

the petition. They are therefore waived for this reason as well. See Pa.R.A.P. 

302(a); see also Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682, 691 (Pa. 

2004) (stating that “a claim not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be raised for 

the first time on appeal”). 

Our independent review of the certified record does not reveal any other 

meritorious issues. 

As we find all of Ream’s issues on appeal are waived, we affirm the PCRA 

court’s order denying Ream’s petition and grant counsel’s application to 

withdraw as counsel. 

Order affirmed. Application to withdraw as counsel granted. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/30/2020