J-S52023-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NYRAN DALE THOMPSON

Appellant No. 3829 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order December 7, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County

Criminal Division at No: CP-45-CR-0002899-2011

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2016

Appellant, Nyran Dale Thompson, appeals from the December 7, 2015 

order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, dismissing 

his petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. In addition, counsel has filed a Turner-Finley “nomerit” letter1

and a petition seeking to withdraw. Upon review, we grant 

counsel’s petition and affirm the order of the PCRA court.

The PCRA court summarized the relevant background as follows:

On May 6, 2014, while represented by the Monroe County Public 

Defender’s Office, [Appellant] pled guilty to [p]ossession of a 

[c]ontrolled [s]ubstance with [i]ntent to [d]eliver (PWID). 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

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

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
J-S52023-16

- 2 -

[Appellant] was immediately sentenced to incarceration of 111⁄2 

to 23 months concurrent to a separate sentence he was serving 

in New York. [Appellant] was given credit for time served and 

immediately released on parole. However, he was returned to 

New York to finish serving his sentence there.

Subsequently, [Appellant] filed a direct appeal from the 

judgment of sentence. The appeal was later discontinued.

[Appellant] is not a United States citizen but has been a 

permanent resident since 1981. He is currently being held in 

New York for deportation proceedings which resulted from his 

conviction in this [c]ourt.

On July 9, 2015, while being held in New York, [Appellant] filed a 

pro-se PCRA petition alleging that his public defender (Plea 

[c]ounsel) was ineffective. On July 13, 2015, new counsel 

(PCRA [c]ounsel) was appointed and a PCRA hearing was 

scheduled. On August 17, 2015, PCRA [c]ounsel filed an 

amended PCRA petition alleging that [p]lea [c]ounsel was 

ineffective in failing to properly advise [Appellant] of the risk of 

deportation before he pled guilty.

A PCRA hearing was held on December 7, 2015. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, [the PCRA court] denied the [] 

petition. [Appellant] then filed this appeal. 

PCRA Court Opinion, 2/16/16, at 1-2. 

Before we consider whether the PCRA court erred in denying 

Appellant’s PCRA petition and the requested relief, we must address whether 

PCRA counsel has met the requirements of Turner/Finley. For PCRA 

counsel to withdraw under Turner/Finley in this Court: 

(1) PCRA counsel must file a no-merit letter that details the 

nature and extent of counsel’s review of the record; lists 

the appellate issues; and explains why those issues are 

meritless. 

(2) PCRA counsel must file an application to withdraw; serve 

the PCRA petitioner with the application and the no-merit 

letter; and advise the petitioner that if the Court grants 
J-S52023-16

- 3 -

the motion to withdraw, the petitioner can proceed pro se

or hire his own lawyer. 

(3) This Court must independently review the record and 

agree that the appeal is meritless.

See Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816, 817-18 (Pa. Super. 2011) 

(citing or quoting Turner, Finley, Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 

(Pa. 2009), and Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 

2008), abrogated by Pitts).

We find that PCRA counsel has complied with Turner/Finley. PCRA 

counsel has petitioned for leave to withdraw and filed a Turner/Finley nomerit letter. Finally, PCRA counsel informed Appellant of his right to hire a 

new lawyer or file a pro se response.

We now turn to this appeal to determine whether it is indeed 

meritless. As this Court has explained:

We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in the 

light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. 

This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the 

evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it 

is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. 

This Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if 

the record supports it. Further, we grant great deference to the 

factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those 

findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we 

afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the 

petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de 

novo and our scope of review plenary. 

Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations 

omitted).
J-S52023-16

- 4 -

All claims raised here challenge the effectiveness of counsel (“IAC 

claims”). More specifically, in his pro se reply to PCRA counsel’s petition to 

withdraw, which Appellant filed after the filing of the instant appeal, 

Appellant argued that PCRA counsel should have raised the following claims: 

(i) plea counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Rule 600 claim, (ii) plea 

counsel coerced Appellant into taking a guilty plea, and (iii) plea counsel was 

ineffective for failing to file a brief with this Court in connection with his 

direct appeal. In the Turner/Finley brief filed by his PCRA counsel, 

Appellant argues plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him about 

the immigration consequences resulting from his plea. 

Appellant’s IAC claims raised in his pro se reply are waived because 

they were raised on appeal for the first time. See Commonwealth v. 

Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims of PCRA counsel’s 

ineffectiveness may not be raised for the first time on appeal); Ford, 44 

A.3d at 1200-01 (claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised 

for the first time after a notice of appeal has been taken from the underlying 

PCRA matter).2

____________________________________________

2

In the alternative, should Appellant’s allegations be construed as merely 

challenging plea counsel’s omissions, not PCRA counsel’s failure to challenge 

plea counsel’s omissions, the pro se IAC claims raised would be nonetheless 

waived because Appellant failed to include said claims in the amended PCRA 

petition and his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 

912 A.2d 268, 278 (Pa. 2006); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 

309 (Pa. 1998). 
J-S52023-16

- 5 -

Accordingly, we will address only the issue raised by PCRA counsel in 

her Turner/Finley brief. Appellant argues plea counsel was ineffective for 

failing to inform him of immigration consequences following the entry of a 

guilty plea. As also noted by the PCRA court, a review of the record belies 

Appellant’s claim. See PCRA Court Opinion, 2/16/16, at 3-5.3 Indeed, 

Appellant was aware of the consequences resulting from the guilty plea. Id.

at 3-4 (quoting N.T. Guilty Plea/Sentencing, 5/6/14, at 5-6). Thus, upon 

review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law, we conclude 

the PCRA court adequately disposed of this claim. Accordingly, we affirm the 

order of the PCRA court. We direct that a copy of the PCRA court’s February 

16, 2016 opinion be filed along with this Memorandum. 

Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted. 

____________________________________________

3

In its written opinion, the PCRA court, after reviewing the record, 

concluded: 

[T]he record is crystal clear that [Appellant] was informed by 

Plea Counsel, as well as the [trial court] and the language of the 

plea form, that pleading guilty to PWID carried a significant risk 

of deportation. Simply there is no doubt that [Appellant] was 

made aware of the potential collateral consequences of 

deportation, and therefore Plea Counsel was not ineffective.

PCRA Court Opinion, 2/16/16, at 4-5.
J-S52023-16

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/22/2016
Circulated 10/31/2016 09:53 AM