J-S34031-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NASIR ANTHONY MALIK GRANT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 625 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2021

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0001705-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NASIR ANTHONY GRANT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 626 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2021

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0001532-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 23, 2022

Appellant, Nasir Anthony Malik Grant, appeals from the orders entered 

at two criminal dockets in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas denying 

his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 

Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm. 

At a plea hearing held January 21, 2020, Appellant entered a negotiated 

guilty plea to firearms and other offenses. Appellant admitted that on March 
J-S34031-21

- 2 -

13, 2019, he caused a hit-and-run collision while driving a stolen vehicle, then 

fled from the police. Appellant reached speeds up to 125 miles-per-hour 

before abandoning his vehicle and continuing to flee on foot. When police 

eventually caught Appellant, he was in possession of a 9-millimeter handgun 

and “a large amount of crack cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine pills. 

[Appellant] also has a prior conviction for a delivery of a controlled substance 

making him a person[] not to possess [a firearm].”1 PCRA Ct. Op., 4/21/21, 

at 1 n.1. 

Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the court immediately sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate term of 4 to 10 years’ incarceration. Relevant to 

the instant appeal, Appellant’s sentence did not include participation in boot 

camp. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. 

On June 5, 2020, Appellant pro se filed a timely PCRA petition, his first. 

The PCRA court appointed counsel who, on July 30, 2020, filed an amended 

petition alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel (“IAC”) for, inter alia,

allegedly misleading Appellant into believing his plea deal included 

participation in boot camp. 

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth charged Appellant with three counts of Possession with 

Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance and one count each of Persons Not 

to Possess Firearms, Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License, Recklessly 

Endangering Another Person, Receiving Stolen Property, Flight to Avoid 

Apprehension, Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Police Officer, Driving While 

Operating Privilege Suspended or Revoked, Accidents Involving Damage to 

Attended Vehicle or Property, and Duty to Give Information and Render Aid. 

35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 2705, 

3925(a), 5126(a), 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3733(a), 1543(a), 3743(a), 3744(a), 

respectively. Appellant pleaded guilty to all charges. 
J-S34031-21

- 3 -

On December 18, 2020, the PCRA court held a hearing at which 

Appellant and his plea counsel testified. On April 26, 2021, the court dismissed 

Appellant’s petition. Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and both he and 

the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant raises a single issue for our review:

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing [Appellant’s] PCRA

petitions when plea counsel was ineffective for advising Appellant

that he was eligible to participate in a boot-camp program while

incarcerated, where such advice was erroneous and material to

Appellant’s decision to accept the plea [deal]?

Appellant’s Br. at 8 (unpaginated).

2

Appellant alleges that his plea counsel errantly advised him that his 

negotiated sentence would include participation in boot camp. Id. at 14, 16-

19. Appellant avers that, but-for counsel’s reference to boot camp, he would 

not have accepted the deal and would have, instead, gone to trial. Id. at 18. 

In reviewing an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, “this Court is 

limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the determination of 

the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.” Commonwealth 

v. Andrews, 158 A.3d 1260, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Our 

scope of review is restricted to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant also alleges that “counsel specifically and erroneously advised him 

of an incorrect prior record score” based on a mistaken belief that Appellant 

was born in 1995 rather than 1999. Appellant’s Br. at 17. Appellant did not 

include this issue in his Statement of Questions Involved and it is not fairly 

suggested thereby; thus, it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116 (“No question will 

be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is 

fairly suggested thereby.”). 
J-S34031-21

- 4 -

of record and must view these in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth 

as the prevailing party. Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 1214 (Pa. 

Super. 2014). Crucially, the PCRA court’s credibility determinations are 

binding on this Court when supported by the record. Commonwealth v. 

Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

Appellant alleges that his plea counsel was ineffective. We presume 

counsel is effective. Commonwealth v. Cox, 983 A.2d 666, 678 (Pa. 2009). 

To overcome this presumption, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the 

underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel lacked a reasonable basis for 

his act or omission; and (3) petitioner suffered actual prejudice. 

Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). To establish 

prejudice for ineffective assistance of plea counsel, the petitioner must prove 

a reasonable probability that but-for counsel’s error, the petitioner would have 

insisted on going to trial. Commonwealth v. Pier, 182 A.3d 476, 479 (Pa. 

Super. 2018). A claim will be denied if the petitioner fails to meet any one of 

these prongs. Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009).

In the instant case Appellant testified that he asked plea counsel if “boot 

camp [was] an option” if he pleaded guilty. N.T. PCRA Hr’g, 12/18/20, at 5. 

According to Appellant, plea counsel responded: “boot camp can be waived in 

during the sentencing process.” Id. Appellant understood this response to 

mean that his sentence would include boot camp, and it was the “only reason
J-S34031-21

- 5 -

[he] stepped up and signed the [plea agreement.]”

3 Id. Appellant’s testimony 

was the sole evidence presented at his PCRA hearing that, but-for counsel’s 

reference to boot camp, Appellant would have insisted on going to trial.

In its opinion, the PCRA court explained that it did not find Appellant’s 

testimony that he would have gone to trial to be credible. PCRA Ct. Op., 

4/21/21, at 7. In support, the court cited (1) the 104-year maximum sentence 

Appellant would have faced if convicted of all charges at trial; (2) the 

“disturbing” facts of the case; and (3) that Appellant had a prior conviction for 

delivery of a controlled substance, thus making him a person not to possess 

a firearm. Id. at 1 n.1, 7. 

Given its credibility finding and the lack of other relevant evidence, the

PCRA court found that Appellant failed to prove that plea counsel’s conduct

caused him to suffer prejudice. PCRA Ct. Op. at 7. As a result, it concluded

that Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed. Id. at 7-8.

The record supports the PCRA court’s credibility finding and, thus, we 

defer to it. See N.T. Plea Hr’g, 1/21/20, at 3-6 (recounting on the record the

facts of underlying incident and Appellant’s criminal history); Written Plea 

Colloquy, 1/21/20 (listing maximum aggregate sentence for all convictions).

Given the court’s credibility determination and the absence of other relevant 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant also cites to a statement plea counsel made during sentencing, 

after Appellant had entered his plea, that Appellant was “looking forward to 

[quitting the use of illegal drugs] through boot camp[.]” N.T. Plea Hr’g, 

1/21/20, at 7. There was no further mention of boot camp at Appellant’s plea 

hearing.
J-S34031-21

- 6 -

evidence, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant failed to prove that 

plea counsel’s stewardship caused him to suffer prejudice. As a result, we 

affirm the court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition. 

Order affirmed. 

Judge McLaughlin files a concurring statement in which Judge Dubow 

joins.

Judge McCaffery files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/23/2022