J. S23010/14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. : 

: 

LOUIS HILL, : No. 3387 EDA 2012 

: 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the PCRA Order, November 20, 2012, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Criminal Division at Nos. CP-23-CR-0000494-2008, 

CP-23-CR-0002291-2009, CP-23-CR-0002303-2009, 

CP-23-CR-0004875-2008, CP-23-CR-0000493-2008 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS AND WECHT, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 

 Appellant appeals from the order denying his first petition filed 

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 9541-9546. Finding no error, we affirm.1

 On September 24, 2009, a jury found appellant guilty of attempted 

murder, aggravated assault, and possessing a firearm without a license in 

connection with an incident in Darby Township on October 22, 2007, during 

which appellant repeatedly shot the victim following an earlier quarrel with 

the victim over a jacket appellant had taken from the victim’s home.

 

1 We note that this appeal applies only to appellant’s conviction at docket 

number CP-23-CR-0000493-2008. Appellant’s PCRA petition raised only this 

docket number and conviction. Appellant improperly added these additional 

docket numbers to a later pleading. 
J. S23010/14 

- 2 - 

 On November 18, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to an 

aggregate term of 231⁄2 to 47 years’ imprisonment, which sentence included 

a 20 to 40-year sentence for attempted murder. On February 28, 2011, this 

court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and on July 7, 2011, our supreme 

court denied appeal. Commonwealth v. Hill, 24 A.3d 468 (Pa.Super. 

2011) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 24 A.3d 362 

(Pa. 2011). On August 8, 2011, appellant timely filed the instant PCRA 

petition. Counsel was appointed, but was subsequently permitted to 

withdraw on October 16, 2012, following the filing of a motion to withdraw 

and “no-merit” brief pursuant to Turner-Finley practice.2

 By that same 

order, the PCRA court issued notice, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 907, 

42 Pa.C.S.A., of its intention to dismiss the petition without hearing. On 

October 23, 2012, appellant filed a response, and on November 20, 2012, 

the PCRA court denied the petition. This timely appeal followed. 

 Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: 

1. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

FOR FAILURE TO: (A) OBJECT TO EVIDENCE 

OF DEFENDANT'S PRIOR BAD ACTS, MOVE FOR 

A MISTRIAL, AND GIVE A PROPER JURY 

INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE EVIDENCE OF 

DEFENDANT'S PRIOR BAD ACTS; and 

(B) OBJECT TO THE COMMONWEALTH'S 

EVIDENCE RELATING TO HEARSAY TESTIMONY 

AND MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL? 

 

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

v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).
J. S23010/14 

- 3 - 

2. WHETHER PCRA COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

FOR FAILING TO RAISE TRIAL COUNSEL AND 

DIRECT APPEAL COUNSEL’S 

INEFFECTIVENESS? 

3. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT'S FIRST PCRA PETITION ON THE 

BASIS OF COUNSEL'S “NO-MERIT” LETTER 

AND GRANTING COUNSEL'S APPLICATION TO 

WITHDRAW APPEARANCE? 

4. WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL? 

5. WHETHER THE MANDATORY SENTENCES 

IMPOSED ON THE DEFENDANT ARE EXCESSIVE 

AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; 

6. WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A 

HEARING PURSUANT TO COMMONWEALTH-vGRANT; and 

7. WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 

Appellant’s brief at 11.3

We find no error with the PCRA court’s decision. After a thorough 

review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the 

well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our determination that there is 

no merit to the questions raised on appeal. The trial court’s nine-page 

opinion, filed on August 28, 2013, thoroughly discusses and properly 

disposes of the questions presented. We will adopt it as our own and affirm 

on that basis with the following additional analysis.

 

3 The pages of appellant’s brief are unnumbered; this is by our count, 

treating the cover page as page 1. 
J. S23010/14 

- 4 - 

 In discussing issue 3, the trial court erroneously states that superior 

court granted counsel’s application to withdraw. (Opinion, 8/28/13 at 7-8.) 

Clearly, it was the PCRA court that granted counsel’s application to 

withdraw. (See Order, 10/16/12; Record Document No. 11.) Aside from 

that error, the analysis is otherwise correct. 

 In Issue 5, appellant argues that his sentence was excessive which the 

trial court correctly dismisses because challenges to the discretionary 

aspects of sentence not cognizable under the PCRA. However, within his 

brief appellant makes claims that his sentence is improper because nowhere 

in the statutes of Pennsylvania is there a provision criminalizing attempted 

murder, nor is there a provision setting the penalty for attempted murder. 

These arguments implicate the legality of appellant’s 240 to 480-month 

sentence for attempted murder. 

Appellant’s argument simply betrays an ignorance of the law. The 

Legislature has provided for murder as a crime at 18, Pa.C.S.A. § 2502, 

while criminal attempt is provided for at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901. The crime of 

attempted murder results from the interplay of these statutes. Under 

Section 901, if a defendant takes an action constituting a substantial step 

toward murder with the intent to commit murder, as appellant did when he 

pumped bullet after bullet into his helpless victim, he is guilty of attempted 

murder. As for the statute setting the penalty for attempted murder, it is 

found here: 
J. S23010/14 

- 5 - 

§ 1102. Sentence for murder, murder of 

unborn child and murder of law enforcement 

officer 

(c) Attempt, solicitation and conspiracy.--

Notwithstanding section 1103(1) (relating to 

sentence of imprisonment for felony), a person 

who has been convicted of attempt, solicitation 

or conspiracy to commit murder, murder of an 

unborn child or murder of a law enforcement 

officer where serious bodily injury results may 

be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which 

shall be fixed by the court at not more than 

40 years. Where serious bodily injury does not 

result, the person may be sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment which shall be fixed by the 

court at not more than 20 years. 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(c). Because the victim suffered serious bodily injury, 

this statute authorized a penalty of 20 to 40 years’ (240 to 480 months’) 

imprisonment. There is no merit to appellant’s argument.

 Accordingly, finding no merit to the issues raised on appeal, we will 

affirm the order below. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/8/2014 
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM

 
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM

 

 

 
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM ---

 

 

 
Circulated 08/26/2014 03:11 PM