J-A11045-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

OTIS JOSEPH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3647 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0208371-2005, 

CP-51-CR-0508241-2004, CP-51-CR-0508251-2004, 

CP-51-CR-0806691-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

OTIS JOSEPH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1506 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0208371-2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

OTIS JOSEPH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1507 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0508241-2004
J-A11045-22

- 2 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

OTIS JOSEPH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1508 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0508251-2004

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

OTIS JOSEPH 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1509 EDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 15, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0806691-2005

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

Otis Joseph appeals the denial of his Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) 

petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

Following a trial in June 2005, a jury found Joseph guilty of multiple sex

crimes and other related crimes he committed against two minors. The trial 

court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 221⁄2 to 45 years’ incarceration. 

In November 2006, in a separate case, a jury convicted Joseph of multiple sex
J-A11045-22

- 3 -

crimes and other related crimes he committed against three minors.1 The trial 

court sentenced Joseph to 11 to 22 years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed 

both judgments of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Joseph, No. 2393 EDA 

2009, 37 A.3d 1240 (Table) (Pa.Super. filed Oct. 24, 2011); Commonwealth 

v. Joseph, No. 2394 EDA 2009, 37 A.3d 1240 (Table) (Pa.Super. filed Oct. 

24, 2011). Our Supreme Court denied allocatur. See Commonwealth v. 

Joseph, 40 A.3d 1234 (Table) (Pa. filed March 21, 2012). 

Joseph filed the instant timely pro se PCRA petition listing all docket

numbers pertaining to both of his convictions. See Pro Se PCRA Petition, filed 

3/23/12. The court appointed counsel who filed an amended petition raising 

claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call character 

witnesses. Counsel also raised a claim challenging the legality of Joseph’s 

sentence under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). Counsel noted 

that there were other issues that Joseph raised in his pro se petition, but 

counsel concluded that those issues were meritless and therefore not included 

in the amended petition. See Amended PCRA Petition Memorandum, filed 

11/17/17 at 7 (“The Defendant Joseph i[n] his pro se PCRA petitions has raised 

many issues. Counsel does not believe they are of arguable merit”). 

The court dismissed the petition and Joseph filed a pro se notice of 

appeal to this Court. PCRA counsel withdrew, and present counsel entered his 

appearance in August 2019. Upon a review of the record, we remanded the 

____________________________________________

1 Joseph was represented by different counsel during the trial on this case. 
J-A11045-22

- 4 -

case for the PCRA court to determine whether initial PCRA counsel had 

abandoned Joseph on appeal and for compliance with Commonwealth v. 

Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), and Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 

A.3d 1141 (Pa.Super. 2020) (en banc). The court determined that Joseph’s 

initial PCRA counsel had abandoned him, and current counsel has resolved all 

issues concerning Walker and Johnson. The case has now returned to us

and is ripe for review. 

Joseph raises the following issues: 

1. Did the Commonwealth violate Brady in its disclosure of 

evidence?

2. Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence?

3. Did the Court err in issuing a curative instruction after opening 

statements[?]

Joseph’s Br. at 5. 

“On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review is 

whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free 

of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1105 (Pa. 2012) 

(citation omitted). Additionally, “a claim not raised in a PCRA petition cannot 

be raised for the first time on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 

A.2d 682, 691 (Pa. 2004). Failure to include the claim in the PCRA petition will 

result in waiver of the claim. Id.; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

All of Joseph’s issues on appeal are waived. He claims the 

Commonwealth committed a Brady violation, challenges the weight of the 
J-A11045-22

- 5 -

evidence, and claims that the trial court erred in giving a curative instruction

following defense counsel’s comments during the opening statement. Joseph 

did not present any of these issues in his amended PCRA petition. We cannot 

entertain them for the first time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). As such, the

claims are waived. See Santiago, 855 A.2d at 691.

Joseph also argues that trial counsel for each trial was ineffective. He 

claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a fact witness, request 

that the court colloquy a juror, and ask the stenographer to record the 

conversations with the court in chambers. None of these arguments were

included in the statement of questions presented.

Issues not listed in the statement of questions will be deemed waived. 

Werner v. Werner, 149 A.3d 338, 341 (Pa.Super. 2016); Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a)

(“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of 

questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”). Moreover, and perhaps 

more importantly, although the instant petition included an ineffectiveness 

claim, it was limited to counsel’s failure to call character witnesses. Joseph’s 

instant claim that counsel was ineffective in different ways is waived for this 

additional reason. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). We therefore affirm.2

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________

2 To the extent that Joseph raised a challenge to a juror’s actions and the 

failure to call a fact witness in his pro se PCRA petition, our review of his claims 

is limited to those preserved in counsel’s amended PCRA petition. See 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1153, 1157 (Pa.Super. 2018) 

(finding waiver of issue raised on appeal that was raised in pro se PCRA 

petition but not in counseled amended petition). 
J-A11045-22

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/07/2022