J-S02027-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRYANT L. YOUNG, 

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1572 EDA 2018

Appeal from the PCRA Order, May 2, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006568-2013.

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2019

Bryant L. Young appeals pro se from the order denying his first petition 

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. We affirm.

The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows: On October 

2, 2014, a jury convicted Young of first-degree murder and related offenses. 

That same day, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison. 

Young filed an appeal to this Court, and we affirmed his judgment of sentence 

on October 20, 2015. Commonwealth v. Young, 134 A.3d 102 (Pa. Super. 

2015). Young did not seek further review.

On June 14, 2016, Young filed a pro se PCRA petition in which he raised 

multiple claims including ineffectiveness of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct 

and alleged constitutional violations. The PCRA court appointed counsel. On 
J-S02027-19

- 2 -

July 12, 2017, PCRA counsel filed an amended petition, which raised the sole 

issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and/or 

call a witness to the shooting, Bernadette Suber. The Commonwealth filed a 

motion in which it requested that Young file a witness certification pursuant 

42 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(a)(15). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d)(1). 

The PCRA court granted Young three continuances so that he could 

investigate and obtain Ms. Suber’s certification. On January 12, 2018, after 

Young failed to submit a certification, the PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 

notice of its intention to dismiss Young’s amended PCRA petition without a 

hearing. Young filed a response, which contained Ms. Suber’s witness 

certification. 

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on May 1, 2018, at which 

time it heard Ms. Suber’s testimony, as well rebuttal testimony from 

Philadelphia homicide detective James Burns. The next day, the PCRA court 

heard testimony from a private investigator who had interviewed Ms. Suber. 

At the conclusion of this hearing, the PCRA court informed the parties that it 

did not find Ms. Suber credible, and, therefore dismissed the amended PCRA 

petition.

When discussing Young’s right to file an appeal, the issue arose as to 

whether Young wanted PCRA counsel to still represent him, or whether Young 

wished to file an appeal pro se. PCRA counsel informed the court that he had 

told Young that the PCRA court’s credibility determination regarding Ms. 

Suber’s testimony would be binding on appeal, and therefore, if he did file an 
J-S02027-19

- 3 -

appeal on Young’s behalf, he would feel compelled to file a petition to withdraw 

and an Anders brief.1 See N.T., 5/2/18, at 35.

The PCRA court engaged in a colloquy with Young, explained to him the

process that occurs when counsel seeks to withdraw, and, ultimately, 

determined that Young wished to represent himself on appeal. The PCRA court 

then asked Young if he had any questions, and the following exchange 

occurred:

[YOUNG]: I wanted to ask one more thing. As far 

as the petition I filed, now just because we went on with Ms. 

Suber’s statement today, none of the other issues [raised in 

the pro se petition] had any merit, is that the reason?

THE COURT: The way it works is yes, I mean 

[PCRA counsel] made a determination when he filed his 

amended petition that this was the only issue with merit, 

and you’re represented by counsel. So, yes, that’s the only 

issue that I’ve addressed.

N.T., 5/2/18, at 44-45. This timely appeal followed. The PCRA court did not 

require Pa.R.A.P. 1925 compliance. The PCRA court, however, has prepared 

____________________________________________

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). However, because Young 

would be appealing from the denial of post-conviction relief, PCRA counsel 

would need to follow the dictates of Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d

927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super.

1988) (en banc).
J-S02027-19

- 4 -

an opinion that addresses Young’s ineffectiveness claim involving Ms. Suber’s 

testimony. See PCRA Court Opinion, 6/18/18.2

Young raises the following issues in his brief:

1. The PCRA court denied Young’s PCRA petition, finding 

that PCRA counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a 

“no merit” letter, pursuant to Finley, supra, stating that 

none of the issues raised in Young’s pro se memorandum 

of law in support of his PCRA petition was of arguable 

merit, thus PCRA counsel and the PCRA court failed to 

comply with the procedural requirements for allowing 

PCRA counsel to withdraw. Did the PCRA court commit 

reversible legal error by doing so?

2. The PCRA court denied [Young’s] PCRA petition, finding 

that PCRA counsel was not ineffective for failing to 

challenge the PCRA court’s refusal to sequester 

Commonwealth rebuttal witness, Detective James Burns, 

who shaped his rebuttal testimony in accordance with the 

testimony given by defense witness Ms. Suber. Did the 

PCRA court commit reversible legal error and a clear 

abuse of discretion in doing so?

See Young’s Brief at 4.

This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a petition 

under the PCRA is to ascertain whether “the determination of the PCRA court 

is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error. The PCRA 

court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings 

in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 

(Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). 

____________________________________________

2 Within this opinion, the PCRA court noted that Young filed a second PCRA 

petition on June 12, 2018, and that the court dismissed it as premature. See 

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/18/18, at 2 n.4.
J-S02027-19

- 5 -

Before addressing the issues Young raises on appeal, we must first 

determine whether the claims are properly before us. Both of Young’s claims 

involve the alleged ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel. Such claims cannot be 

raised after a notice of appeal has been filed. Commonwealth v. Henkel, 

90 A.3d 16, 21-30 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing in detail appellate decisions 

addressing the preservation of claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness). 

Here, contrary to Young’s statement of his issues, the PCRA court never

addressed the effectiveness of PCRA counsel, but rather only addressed the 

ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Young never challenged PCRA counsel’s 

effectiveness before the PCRA court. Thus, Young inappropriately has raised 

the claims regarding PCRA counsel for the first time on appeal. See 

generally, Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

In addition, Young’s first issue, as stated, misunderstands the 

circumstances regarding PCRA counsel’s withdrawal. Clearly, the dictates of 

Turner/Finley do not apply given the procedural history of this case. PCRA

counsel did not seek to withdraw once he had reviewed the record, but rather 

filed an amended petition after which an evidentiary hearing was held. Thus, 

the PCRA court was under no obligation to independently review of the issues 

PCRA counsel chose not to pursue. PCRA counsel was granted permission to 

withdraw because he believed an appeal of the denial of post-conviction relief 

would be frivolous, and the PCRA court determined that Young was willing and 

able to file the appeal pro se.
J-S02027-19

- 6 -

As to Young’s second issue, we note that, in addition to not being 

preserved for appeal, it is also undeveloped. Young provides no supporting 

argument for this claim. Indeed, the Commonwealth contends that Detective 

Burns was not inside the courtroom when Ms. Suber testified. See 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 10, n.3.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/19