J-S34020-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALTRICK M. TAYLOR

Appellant No. 1366 MDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order Dated June 30, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at Nos: CP-40-CR-0003278-2012, CP-40-CR-0003281-

2012, CP-40-CR-0004263-2012, and CP-40-CR-0002665-2013

BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and JENKINS, JJ. 

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

Appellant Altrick M. Taylor appeals from the June 30, 2015 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (“PCRA court”), denying relief 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. 

PCRA counsel has filed a no-merit brief and petitioned to withdraw under 

Turner/Finley.

1

 Upon review, we affirm and grant the petition to withdraw.

Briefly, after pleading guilty to various crimes, including possession of 

a firearm, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), receiving stolen 

property, driving under the influence, and possession with intent to deliver 

(heroin), Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years’ 

____________________________________________

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

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 
J-S34020-16

- 2 -

imprisonment, followed by one year of probation. Appellant did not file a 

direct appeal. On July 17, 2014, Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition, 

raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims. On June 30, 2015, the PCRA 

court denied Appellant relief. Appellant timely appealed to this Court.

On January 29, 2016, Appellant’s PCRA counsel filed in this Court an 

application to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit letter, wherein counsel 

raises two issues for our review:

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object when 

the trial court indicated that she was related to the victim in 

this case.

2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective by allegedly 

guaranteeing [] Appellant a specific sentence of 2 years to 4 

years upon pleading guilty.

Turner/Finley Brief at 1. 

Before we may consider these issues, 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 

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 
J-S34020-16

- 3 -

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

2008), overruled in part by Pitts).

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

counsel has petitioned for leave to withdraw and filed an Anders brief, 

which we accept in lieu of a Turner/Finley no-merit letter.2 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. “On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard of review 

requires us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported 

by the record and free of legal error.” Widgins, 29 A.3d at 819.

As noted, both issues on appeal implicate the ineffectiveness of trial 

counsel. Specifically, whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek 

the trial judge’s recusal and in guaranteeing Appellant a sentence of two to 

four years’ imprisonment. 

A PCRA petitioner is entitled to relief by showing that his conviction is 

a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). 

____________________________________________

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), sets forth the requirements to 

withdraw on direct appeal, which are more stringent than the Turner/Finley

requirements that apply on collateral appeal. See Widgins, 29 A.3d at 817 

n.2. “Because an Anders brief provides greater protection to a defendant, 

this Court may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter.” 

Id.
J-S34020-16

- 4 -

“To prevail on an [ineffectiveness] claim, a PCRA petitioner must plead and 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the underlying legal claim 

has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for acting or failing 

to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered resulting prejudice.” 

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

2015) (en banc). “A petitioner must prove all three factors of the ‘Pierce[3]

test,’ or the claim fails.” Id. 

Instantly, our review of the record reveals that the first ineffectiveness 

claim is without merit as it lacks a factual basis. Contrary to Appellant’s 

assertion, the trial judge never stated that she was related to one of the 

victims. As the PCRA court noted in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial 

judge “was aware that one of the victims was one of her son’s friends, the 

grandmother. [The trial judge] further indicated that she simply had 

knowledge of this individual but made it perfectly clear that she was not 

related to either of the victims, Kevin Toole or Donna Roman.”4 PCRA Court 

Opinion, 11/12/15, at 3 (emphasis in original). 

____________________________________________

3 Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987).

4 We note that the trial judge here complied with Section 2.11 of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct, relating to disqualification. Comment 5 to Section 2.11 

provides that “[a] judge should disclose on the record information that the 

judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider 

relevant to a possible motion for disqualification[.]” 
J-S34020-16

- 5 -

We now turn to Appellant’s second ineffectiveness claim, which also is 

wholly without merit for lack of a factual predicate. Instantly, the PCRA 

court found credible Appellant’s trial counsel’s testimony at the PCRA hearing 

to the extent trial counsel testified that he did not promise or guarantee 

Appellant a sentence of two to four years’ imprisonment. See N.T. PCRA 

Hearing, 3/17/15 at 17, 20-21. 

In sum, PCRA counsel has complied with Turner/Finley. We have 

reviewed the record, and we are convinced that no meritorious appellate 

issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of PCRA relief and grant the 

petition to withdraw.

Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/22/2016