### 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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION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, J J.

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

Appellant appeals from the order denying his first pe tition 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 guil ty of attempted

murder, aggravated assault, and possessing a firearm wi thout a license in

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

which appellant repeatedly shot the victim following a n earlier quarrel with

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

1 

### We note that this appeal applies only to appellant’s conviction at doc ket

number CP- 23

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

docket number and conviction. Appellant improperly ad ded these additional

docket numbers to a later pleading.

### J. S23010/14

- 2 -

On November 18, 2009, the trial court sentenced appe llant to an

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

a 20 to 40-year sentence for attempted murder. On F ebruary 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2011) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 24 A.3d 362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 fil ed the instant PCRA

petition. Counsel was appointed, but was subsequently p ermitted to

withdraw on October 16, 2012, following the filing o f 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.C rim.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 N ovember 20, 2012,

the PCRA court denied the petition. This timely app eal 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 COU NSEL’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.

Ap pellant’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 de termination that there is

no meri t to the questions raised on appeal. The trial court’s nine -page

opinion, filed on August 28, 2013, thoroughly discusse s 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 t hat superior

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

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

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

that error, the analysis is otherwise correct.

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

trial court correctly dismisses because challenges to the discre tionary

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

brief appellant makes claims that his sentence is improp er because nowhere

in the statutes of Pennsylvania is there a provision crim inalizing attempted

murder, nor is there a provision setting the penalty f or 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, P a.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 ap pellant 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 at tempted murder, it is

found here:

### J. S23010/14

- 5 - § 1102. Sentence for murder, murder of

un born 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 ser ious bodily injury,

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

imprisonment. There is no merit to appellant’s argume nt.

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

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