J. S58038/18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

ANTONYO MONTEZ HARRIS, : No. 690 WDA 2018

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the PCRA Order, April 12, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County

Criminal Division at No. CP-61-CR-0000352-2016

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2018

Antonyo Montez Harris appeals from the April 12, 2018 order denying 

his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Contemporaneously with this appeal, 

PCRA counsel has requested leave to withdraw. After careful review, we find 

PCRA counsel’s petition satisfies the requirements of Commonwealth v. 

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

A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). Accordingly, we grant PCRA counsel 

leave to withdraw and affirm the order of the PCRA court. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from 

the certified record, are as follows. On November 21, 2016, appellant pled 

guilty to corrupt organizations, criminal use of a communication facility, and 
J. S58038/18

- 2 -

two counts of delivery of a controlled substance1in connection with his sale 

of heroin in Oil City, Pennsylvania. That same day, appellant also pled guilty 

to aggravated harassment by prisoner2in connection with an incident where 

he spit on a correctional officer at the Venango County Jail. On February 7, 

2017, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 93 to 

300 months’ imprisonment. Neil E. Rothschild, Esq. (“trial counsel”),

represented appellant during his guilty plea hearing and sentencing. 

Appellant did not file a direct appeal with this court. 

On June 1, 2017, appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition and Eric Padin, 

Esq. (“PCRA counsel”), was appointed to represent him. PCRA counsel did 

not file an amended PCRA petition on appellant’s behalf. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court entered an order on April 12, 2018

denying appellant’s petition. Although still represented by counsel, appellant 

filed a timely pro se notice of appeal and an accompanying 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on May 7, 2018. On May 9, 2018, the PCRA 

court directed PCRA counsel to file an amended Rule 1925(b) statement on 

appellant’s behalf within 21 days. PCRA counsel timely complied on May 29, 

2018. Thereafter, on June 4, 2018, PCRA counsel filed a statement of intent 

to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 911(b)(4), 7512(a), and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 

respectively.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2703.1.
J. S58038/18

- 3 -

Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). On June 7, 

2018, the PCRA court filed a one-page Rule 1925(a) opinion indicating that it 

was relying on the reasoning set forth in its April 12, 2018 opinion in support 

of its order dismissing appellant’s PCRA petition. (See Rule 1925(a) opinion, 

6/7/18 at 1.) Thereafter, on July 25, 2018, PCRA counsel filed a petition to 

withdraw, improperly couched as a Anders/McClendon brief. Appellant did 

not file a pro se response to PCRA counsel’s petition. 

PCRA counsel raises the following claim on appellant’s behalf: 

Did the PCRA court err in determining that 

[a]ppellant’s prior record score was correctly 

calculated to be a five (5)?

. . . .

Appellant asserts that his Prior Record Score was 

four (4) and claims that his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to object to his Prior Record 

Score calculation. 

Anders brief at 5, 7.

Prior to considering appellant’s arguments, we must address PCRA 

counsel’s “no-merit” letter and petition to withdraw from representation. In 

Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509 (Pa.Super. 2016), a panel of this 

court reiterated the procedure to be followed when PCRA counsel seeks 

permission to withdraw from representation:

Counsel petitioning to withdraw from PCRA 

representation must proceed . . . under 

[Turner/Finley] and . . . must review the case 

zealously. Turner/Finley counsel must then submit 

a “no-merit” letter to the trial court, or brief on 
J. S58038/18

- 4 -

appeal to this Court, detailing the nature and extent 

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

issues 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—trial court or this 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.

Muzzy, 141 A.3d at 510-511 (some bracketed internal citations amended; 

case citations omitted).

Herein, we find that PCRA counsel’s filing with this court, while 

couched as an Anders brief, complied with the requirements of 

Turner/Finley. See Commonwealth v. Fusselman, 866 A.2d 1109, 

1111 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2004) (holding that although “[a] Turner/Finley

no[-]merit letter is the appropriate filing [in a PCRA proceeding,] . . . 

because an Anders brief provides greater protection to the defendant, we 

may accept an Anders brief in lieu of a Turner/Finley letter”), appeal 

denied, 882 A.2d 477 (Pa. 2005). Specifically, PCRA counsel’s brief and 
J. S58038/18

- 5 -

petition to the court detailed the nature and extent of his review. PCRA 

counsel first identified the pertinent factual and procedural history and 

examined the issue appellant raised in his PCRA petition. (Anders brief at 

6-7.) Thereafter, PCRA counsel explained the reasons why appellant’s 

underlying sentencing claim lacked arguable merit and concluded that trial 

counsel had no reasonable basis to object to appellant’s prior record score at 

sentencing. (Id. at 7-8.) Lastly, the record reflects that counsel served

appellant with a copy of his petition to withdraw and advised appellant of his 

right to proceed pro se or with the assistance of privately retained counsel. 

(See “Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel,” 7/25/18 at Exhibit A.) We 

find that counsel’s request for leave to withdraw from representation 

satisfies the requirements of Turner/Finley. See Commonwealth v. 

Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 947 (Pa.Super. 2003) (stating that substantial 

compliance with requirements will satisfy the Turner/Finley criteria). 

Accordingly, we must now conduct our own review of the record and render 

a decision as to whether the appeal is without merit.

Proper appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition 

is limited to the examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is 

supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 

102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “This Court grants 

great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not disturb 

those findings merely because the record could support a contrary holding.” 
J. S58038/18

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 143 A.3d 394, 397 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

(citation omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a defendant must 

plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or 

sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9543(a)(2). Further, these issues must be neither previously litigated nor 

waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3).

Appellant’s challenge implicates the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel

during his plea. It is well settled that allegations of ineffectiveness in 

connection with the entry of a guilty plea will serve as a basis for relief only 

if the ineffectiveness caused the defendant to enter an involuntary or 

unknowing plea. See Commonwealth v. Orlando, 156 A.3d 1274, 1281 

(Pa.Super. 2017) (stating, “[i]n the context of a plea, a claim of 

ineffectiveness may provide relief only if the alleged ineffectiveness caused 

an involuntary or unknowing plea.” (citation omitted)). In Commonwealth 

v. Willis, 68 A.3d 997 (Pa.Super. 2013), a panel of this court explained that 

the PCRA will provide relief to an appellant if ineffective assistance of 

counsel caused him to enter an involuntary guilty plea. Id. at 1001-1002. 

We conduct our review of such a claim in accordance with the three-pronged 

ineffectiveness test under Section 9543(a)(2)(ii) of the PCRA. To prevail on 

a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the PCRA, a petitioner 

must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel’s 

ineffectiveness “so undermined the truth-determining process that no 
J. S58038/18

- 7 -

reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). Specifically, a petitioner must establish the 

following three factors: “first[,] the underlying claim has arguable merit; 

second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and 

third, that Appellant was prejudiced.” Commonwealth v. Charleston, 94 

A.3d 1012, 1020 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 104 

A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014). 

Here, the crux of appellant’s claim is that trial counsel was ineffective 

in failing to object to the calculation of his prior record score, and as a 

result, he was induced into entering “an unknowing plea based on his 

reliance on counsel’s assurance that [he] would receive a sentence no 

greater than 240 months.” (Pro se PCRA petition, 6/1/17 at 11; see also

Anders brief at 7-8.) 

This court has explained that in order to ensure a voluntary, knowing, 

and intelligent plea, the trial court, at a minimum, must ask the following 

questions during the guilty plea colloquy:

1) Does the defendant understand the nature of 

the charges to which he or she is pleading 

guilty or nolo contendere?

2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?

3) Does the defendant understand that he or she 

has the right to a trial by jury?

4) Does the defendant understand that he or she 

is presumed innocent until found guilty?
J. S58038/18

- 8 -

5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible 

ranges of sentences and/or fines for the 

offenses charged?

6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not 

bound by the terms of any plea agreement 

tendered unless the judge accepts such 

agreement?

Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 660 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation 

omitted). Lastly, we recognize that “[a] defendant is bound by the 

statements which he makes during his plea colloquy. As such, a defendant 

may not assert grounds for withdrawing the plea that contradict statements 

made when he entered the plea.” Orlando, 156 A.3d at 1281 (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review, we find that appellant’s contention that he was induced 

to plead guilty because of trial counsel’s purported ineffectiveness is belied 

by the record. On November 21, 2016, the trial court conducted an 

extensive guilty plea colloquy, wherein appellant testified that he understood

the nature of the charges to which he was pleading guilty, his right to a jury 

trial, and the fact that he is presumed innocent until found guilty. (Notes of 

testimony, 11/21/16 at 6-8, 24.) Appellant also indicated that he could read 

and write English proficiently, was not under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol, and was not undergoing treatment for mental illness. (Id. at 6, 9.) 

Thereafter, appellant was provided a factual basis for the guilty plea. (Id. at 

10-13.) The trial court also informed appellant of the elements of the 

offenses to which he was pleading guilty, as well as the permissible ranges 
J. S58038/18

- 9 -

of sentences for each charge, based upon a prior record score of 5. (Id.

at 13-20 (emphasis added).) Appellant further indicated that he was 

entering a guilty plea of his own free will and understood that the trial court 

was not bound by the terms of the plea agreement unless it decided to 

accept such agreement. (Id. at 20, 25.) During the colloquy, appellant 

indicated that he read and thoroughly discussed the plea agreement with 

trial counsel; that he had a full and complete understanding of his plea 

agreement; and did not have any questions with regard to the agreement. 

(Id. at 21, 25.) Appellant also testified that he discussed his case with trial 

counsel, that no one had threatened, forced, or induced him to plead guilty,

and that he was satisfied with trial counsel’s advice and representation. (Id.

at 22-23.) Moreover, it appears from a review of the record that the correct 

prior record score was in fact a five.

Based upon the foregoing, we cannot agree that trial counsel’s

purported ineffectiveness induced appellant to enter an unknowing, 

unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea. “The law does not require that 

[appellant] be pleased with the outcome of his decision to enter a plea of 

guilty: All that is required is that [his] decision to plead guilty be knowingly, 

voluntarily and intelligently made.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 

A.2d 1184, 1192 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 

9 A.3d 626 (Pa. 2010). Having conducted an independent review of the

record in this case, we discern no other issues of arguable merit. 
J. S58038/18

- 10 -

Accordingly, we grant PCRA counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the 

April 12, 2018 order of the PCRA court.

Order affirmed. Petition for leave to withdraw as counsel granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/30/2018