J

- S22039

- 22

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

v.

CARLOS HAIRSTON

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 758 EDA 2022 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 17, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 15

- CR

- 0004377

- 2019,

CP

- 15

- CR

- 0004471

- 2019 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CARLOS HAIRSTON

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 759 EDA 2022 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 17, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 15

- CR

- 0004377

- 2019,

CP

- 15

- CR

- 0004471

- 2019 BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2022 Carlos Hairston (“Hairston”) appeals pro se from the denial of his petition s for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 We affirm.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S22039

- 22

- 2

-

On November 16, 2020, Hairston , who was represented by counsel (“plea counsel”) , entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of burglary and one count of persons not to possess firearms

. On Information 4377 of 2019, Hairston admitted he entered a home without permission and stole a handgun. He further admitted that he had a prior disqualifying conviction that made him ineligible to possess a firearm

. At Information 4471 of 2019, he admitted that he entered a home without permission and stole jewelry

. See N.T., 11/ 1 6/20, at 2

- 3 , 6

- 8

. 2 Hairston told the plea court that he had sufficient time to consult with his attorney , was satisfied with his attorney ’s services,

un d erstood the rights he was surrender ing by pleading guilty, and had not been promised anything in exchange for his ple a other than the terms of his negotiated plea

. See i d . at 6

- 8. The plea court found that Hairston’s plea

was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. See id . at 8. 3
Hairston had a prior record score of five

. The sentencing guidelines called for a minimu m sentence of twenty
- four to thirty

- six months of

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 As part of the same negotiated guilty plea, Hairston pled guilty to offenses charged at Information 1381 of 2019, Information 2378 of 2020, and Information 2733 of 2020. See N.T., 11/16/20, 3

- 4, 6

- 8.

3 The written plea colloquy contained a paragraph designated “[MANDATORY SENTENCES ONLY].” In the blank space after the words “The crime of” in that paragraph, the words “No Mandatory” were handwritten, indicating that there was no mandatory s entence. Hairston placed his initials beside th at paragraph, and signed the page on which it appeared

. See Guilty Plea Colloquy, 11/16/20, at 8, ¶ 32.J

- S22039

- 22

- 3

-

imprisonment for burglar y , and sixty to seventy

- two months of imprisonment for persons not to possess firearms

. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), 204 Pa. Code §§ 303.3, 303.15, 303.16(a)

. 4 The prosecutor stated that the negotiated sentences account ed for all of the crimes to which Hairston pled

. See N.T., 11/16/20, at 9

- 10. The plea court imposed the terms of the negotiated plea: five to ten years of imprisonment for persons not to possess firearms, and a consecutive term of twenty

- one to forty

- eight months of
incarceration for burglary at Information 4377 of 2019 ; and a consecutive term of twenty

- one to forty

- eight months of imprisonment for burglary at Information 4 4 71 of 2019

. 5 See id

. at 9

- 1 1

. Hairston did not file post

- sentence motion s or direct appeal s . He filed identical timely pro se PCRA petition s for both cases , claiming that he received a mandatory sentence for persons not to possess firearms in violation of Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013) , which hold s that any factor that increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an element of the crime to

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 4 The prosecutor told the plea court that the statutory maximum sentence for persons not to possess firearms was ten years, and that Hairston’s minimum sentence for that offense therefore could not exceed five years even though the sentencing guidelines standard range called for a minimum sentence of between five and six years of imprisonment

. See N.T., 11/16/20, at 10.

5 The plea agreement imposed additional sentences for Hairston’s other crimes. See N.T. , 11/16/20, at 12

- 15.J

- S22039

- 22

- 4

-

be submitted to a jury. 6 The PCRA court appointed C. Curtis Norcini, Esquire (“Attorney Norcini”) , to represent Hairston on both cases

. Atto r ney Norcini filed Finley 7 no - merit letter s and request s to withdraw as counsel. The PCRA court issued notice s of intent to dismiss Hairston’s PCRA petition s . See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Hairston responded pro se to the PCRA court’s notice s , asserting that he received a mandatory minimum sentence for persons not to possess firearms in violation of Alleyne , and that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the imposition of an unlawful sentence. See Hairston’s Rule 907 Response, 1/26/22, at 4 (unnumbered). T he PCRA court granted Attorney Norcini’s petition s to withdraw and dismissed both of Hairston’s PCRA petition s in a single order

. Hairston and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. In his appellate briefs , Hairston fail s to provide a statement of questions involved, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2116 , or a statement of the case containing a closely condensed chronological statement of all facts necessary to

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 6 Hairston also checked boxes on his PCRA petition s stating that plea counsel was ine ffective , he had exculpatory evidence that would have changed the outcome of trial if introduced , and the facts supporting his claim were unknown to him and could not have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence

. See PCRA Petition, 9/13/21, at 2

- 3 . Hairston did not discuss those assertions in his PCRA petition

.
7 See Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ).J

- S22039

- 22

- 5

-

determine the points in controversy in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2117 (a)(4)

. 8 We are nevertheless able to discern that Hairston asserts that : (1) the plea court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence for persons not to possess firearms in violation of Alle y

ne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013); (2) plea counsel was ineffective for not asserting that Hairston’s persons not to possess firearms sentence was illegal; and (3) Hairston’s plea was involuntary and unknowing because he did not receive pretrial not ice of the prosecution’s intent to seek a mandatory sentence for his conviction of persons not to possess firearms

. See Hairston’s Brief at 8

- 10. This Court’s standard for reviewing the dismissal of PCRA relief is well

settled: Our review of a PCRA court’ s decision is limited to examining whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error. We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party in the PCRA Cour t. We are bound by any credibility determinations made by the PCRA court where they are supported by the record. However, we review the PCRA court’s legal conclusions de novo

. Commonwealth v. Staton , 184 A.3d 949, 954 (Pa. 2018) ( internal citation s and quotations omitted). The PCRA court wrote separate opinions addressing each of Hairston’s two PCRA petitions. On Information 4377 of 2019, the PCRA court stated that :

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 8 Hairston filed id entical briefs for both appeals . We subsequently con solidated the cases sua sponte

.J

- S22039

- 22

- 6

-

(1) no mandatory minimum sentence was discussed at sentencing, (2) no mandatory minimum sentence w as designated on the written guilty plea colloquy, (3) Hairston’s persons not to possess firearm s sentence was not a mandatory minimum sentence and was at the low end of the standard guidelines range, (4) Hairston’s plea was kno wing, voluntary, and intelligent, and (5) Hairston had waived all other issues by pleading guilty. See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/13/22, at 2

- 7 (Information 4377 of 2019)

. On Information 4471 of 2019, the PCRA court additionally stated that Hairston did not contend that he received a mandatory minimum sentence in that case , and had therefore failed to raise a claim for post

- conviction relief. See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/13/22, at 2

- 7 (Information 4 471 of 2019)

. We affirm the PCRA court’s order denying Hairston’s petiti ons . Hairston’s claims are all predicated on his assertion that he received a n illegal mandatory minimum sentence for persons not to possess firearms. He did
not , and n one of the parties s tated at the hearing on Hairston’s negotiated plea that Hairston was receiving a mandatory minimum sentenc e . Additionally, Hairston received a sentence at the bottom of the standard range of the sentencing guidelines , and Hairston himself signed and initi aled a detailed written guilty plea colloquy which stated that there was no mandatory minimum sentence in the case. See Written Guilty Plea Colloquy, 11/16/20, at 8 , ¶ 32. Th us , the PCRA court properly concluded that Hairston did not
receive a mandatory minimum sentence in violation of Alleyne

. Further,J

- S22039

- 22

- 7

-

H airston c an not demonstrate that plea counsel was ineffective for not investigating meritless claim s concerning his alleged receipt o f a mandatory
sentence or preserving a challenge to the knowi ng and voluntary nature of his plea solely predicated on the incorrect assertion that he received an illegal mandatory minimum sentence. See Commonwealth v. Spotz , 896 A.2d 1191, 1214 (Pa. 2006). T h us, th e PCRA court properly dismissed Hairston’s PCRA petition. See Staton , 184 A.3d at 954

. Order s affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/25/2022