J-S15019-16

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MAURICIO JOSE BEDOLLA CAMACHO,

Appellant No. 672 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order of February 9, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0002109-2008

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON AND PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2016

Appellant, Mauricio Jose Bedolla Camacho, appeals pro se from the 

order entered on February 9, 2015 dismissing his first petition filed pursuant 

to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-9546. After 

careful consideration, we vacate and remand. 

The factual background and procedural history of this case are as 

follows. On April 27, 2008, Appellant strangled his ex-girlfriend, Daicy 

Vazquez-Bedolla, to death. On May 1, 2009, Appellant confessed to the 

crime. On July 12, 2011, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder1

and possessing an instrument of crime.2 On September 22, 2011, he was 

sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without the possibility 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a). 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a). 
J-S15019-16

- 2 -

of parole. This Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of 

sentence and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Bedolla Camacho, 60 A.3d 864 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 72 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2013).3 After 

resentencing, Appellant once again appealed and this Court affirmed the 

judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Bedolla Camacho, 87 A.3d 

894 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum).

On January 27, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. On March 

6, 2014, counsel was appointed. On August 1, 2014, counsel filed a petition 

to withdraw with an accompanying letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. 

Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 

A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). Thereafter, Appellant filed a 

response to counsel’s petition to withdraw. On January 15, 2015, the PCRA 

court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the petition without an evidentiary 

hearing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On February 9, 2015, Appellant filed a 

response to the Rule 907 notice. That same day, the PCRA court dismissed 

Appellant’s PCRA petition and granted counsel’s petition to withdraw. This 

timely appeal followed.4 

 

3 This Court vacated the restitution portion of the judgment of sentence on 

procedural grounds. 

4 On March 11, 2015, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On March 31, 2015, Appellant filed his concise 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S15019-16

- 3 -

Appellant presents four issues for our review:

[1. Did PCRA counsel and the PCRA court fail to comply with 

Turner/Finley?

2. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when 

they5failed to object to the jury having a written copy of the 

jury instructions?

3. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when 

they failed to object to the Commonwealth’s presentation of 

surprise evidence?

4. Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel when 

they failed to object to prior bad acts evidence?]

See Appellant’s Brief at iv. 

In his first issue, Appellant claims that PCRA counsel and the PCRA 

court failed to comply with the mandates of Turner/Finley. Specifically, he 

argues that PCRA counsel failed to discuss one issue raised in his pro se

PCRA petition and that the PCRA court failed to consider his response to the 

Rule 907 notice. Whether PCRA counsel and the PCRA court complied with 

Turner/Finley is a question of law; therefore, our standard of review is de 

novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Rykard, 

55 A.3d 1177, 1183-1184 (Pa. Super. 2012).

Counsel seeking to withdraw in PCRA proceedings 

must review the case zealously. [ C]ounsel must then submit a 

“no-merit” letter to the trial court . . . detailing the nature and 

extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing the issues 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

statement. On July 2, 2015, the PCRA court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

All issues raised on appeal were included in Appellant’s concise statement. 

5 Appellant was represented at trial by two attorneys. 
J-S15019-16

- 4 -

which petitioner wants to have reviewed, explaining why and 

how those issues lack merit, and requesting permission to 

withdraw.

Counsel must also send to the petitioner: (1) a copy of the “no 

merit” letter/brief; (2) a copy of counsel’s petition to withdraw; 

and (3) a statement advising petitioner of the right to proceed 

pro se or by new counsel.

Where counsel submits a petition and no-merit letter that satisfy 

the technical demands of Turner/Finley, the court . . . must 

then conduct its own review of the merits of the case. If the 

court agrees with counsel that the claims are without merit, the 

court will permit counsel to withdraw and deny relief.

Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 454 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal 

alteration, ellipses, and citation omitted). 

Appellant argues that PCRA counsel’s Turner/Finley letter was 

inadequate because it failed to address one of the claims originally raised in 

Appellant’s pro se petition, i.e., trial counsel’s failure to call an expert 

witness in support of his heat of passion defense. We agree. In his PCRA 

petition, Appellant requested that PCRA counsel investigate and pursue an 

ineffectiveness claim based on trial counsel’s failure to hire and call an 

expert witness to support his heat of passion defense. See PCRA Petition, 

1/27/14, at 16. PCRA counsel did not refer to or discuss this claim in his 

Turner/Finley letter and the PCRA court failed to address the claim in its 

Rule 907 notice. In his response to the Rule 907 notice, Appellant argued 

that PCRA counsel and the PCRA court failed to comply with Turner/Finley

because this issue was overlooked. See Response to Rule 907 Notice, 
J-S15019-16

- 5 -

2/9/15, at 9. In its order dismissing the petition and granting PCRA 

counsel’s petition to withdraw, the PCRA court failed to address this issue. 

Therefore, we conclude that PCRA counsel failed to “list[] the issues 

which [Appellant] want[ed ] reviewed[ and] explain[] why and how those 

issues lack merit[.]” Doty, 48 A.3d at 454. The PCRA court should have 

denied PCRA counsel’s petition to withdraw and ordered him to either file an 

amended PCRA petition or a compliant Turner/Finley letter. Accordingly, 

we vacate the PCRA court’s order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition and 

remand for the appointment of new PCRA counsel. New PCRA counsel shall 

review the record and file either an amended petition or a compliant 

Turner/Finley letter.6 

Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/11/2016

 

6 We also suggest that, if new PCRA counsel is not fluent in Spanish, he or 

she use a translator to communicate with Appellant. Appellant is not fluent 

in English and communication in English is being accomplished through other 

inmates. See Response to Rule 907 Notice, 2/9/15, at 2.