J-S71039-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TYSHAWN WATSON,

Appellant No. 1109 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order March 20, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0907211-2004

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED JANUARY 19, 2018

Appellant, Tyshawn Watson, appeals pro se from the order dismissing 

his petition for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. Appellant claims that counsel at his revocation 

hearing was ineffective for failing to object to an illegal sentence. Appellant’s 

claim lacks arguable merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

This case has a lengthy history. We summarize only the most relevant 

facts. On November 9, 2004, Appellant entered a guilty plea to various drug 

offenses. Although subject to a maximum term of twenty years’ 

imprisonment, he received the benefit of a negotiated aggregate sentence of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S71039-17

- 2 -

not less than two nor more than twelve months of county incarceration, plus

two three-year terms of probation. (See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/20/17, at 1-

2). All sentences were concurrent. (See id. at 2). 

There followed a decade-long odyssey of technical and direct violations, 

arrest and conviction on other charges, absconding from probation three 

times, eleven failed drug tests, failures to appear in court, etc. Finally, on 

September 22, 2014, the trial court again revoked Appellant’s probation and 

re-sentenced him to an aggregate term of not less than four nor more than 

eight years of incarceration in a state correctional institution. (See id. at 3; 

see also Commonwealth’s Brief, at 2-3). On direct appeal, this Court affirmed 

the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Watson, 144 A.3d 206 

(Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant filed the instant 

PCRA petition, pro se, on April 11, 2016. The PCRA court appointed counsel, 

who filed a “no merit” letter and requested permission to withdraw.

1 After 

notice, the court dismissed the petition, and granted counsel permission to 

withdraw. (See Order, 3/20/17); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant 

timely appealed pro se. 

Appellant presents one question for our review:

Was PCRA [sic] counsel ineffective for failing to argue that 

the sentence imposed by the trial court exceeded the maximum 

sentence allowed under the law under the circumstances of the 

revocation hearing?

____________________________________________

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

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
J-S71039-17

- 3 -

(Appellant’s Brief, at 3) (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

“[I]n reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA relief, 

this Court is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the 

determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Grove, 170 A.3d 1127, 1136 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

omitted). “In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, ‘[t]he issue . . . is a question 

of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review 

is de novo.’” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super.

2011), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). 

It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and to 

rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate 

that counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficiency 

prejudiced him. . . . [O]ur Supreme Court [has] articulated a 

three-part test to determine whether an appellant has received 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant must demonstrate 

that: (1) the underlying legal issue has arguable merit; (2) 

counsel’s actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) 

Appellant was prejudiced by counsel’s act or omission.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 51 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc), 

appeal denied, 63 A.3d 1245 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted). In addition, “[an appellant’s] failure to satisfy any prong of the 

ineffectiveness test requires rejection of the claim of ineffectiveness.” 

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009) (citation 

omitted).

Here, Appellant utterly fails to plead and prove his assertion of 

ineffectiveness of counsel. His purported authority for the claim that his 
J-S71039-17

- 4 -

sentence after revocation exceeded the legal maximum is counsel’s casual, 

tentative, reference to a ten-year maximum sentence, and a three-year

remainder, taken out of context. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 11) (citing N.T. 

Revocation Hearing, 9/22/14, at 10). The trial judge immediately challenged 

counsel’s supposition. (See id.). Appellant offers nothing to support his claim 

except for this brief, tentative, out of context reference, immediately 

questioned by the trial court judge. Appellant fails to prove his sentence was 

illegal. It was not. Appellant’s claim lacks arguable merit. He fails to 

overcome the presumption of effectiveness. See Johnson, supra at 243;

Daniels, supra at 419. His claim does not merit relief. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/19/2018