J-S20032-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RAYSHAWN HALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1141 WDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 16, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0004461-2017

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED: October 13, 2022

Appellant, Rayshawn Hall, appeals pro se from the order entered in the 

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition filed 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this matter are as follows. On June 

19, 2018, Appellant pled guilty to rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 

sexual assault, strangulation, and simple assault. Consistent with the plea 

agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 8 to 16 years’ imprisonment 

for rape, with no further penalty imposed at the remaining counts. Appellant 

did not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal. 

On July 9, 2020, Appellant filed his first PCRA petition pro se. The court 

____________________________________________

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. 
J-S20032-22

- 2 -

appointed counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw and no-merit letter on 

September 4, 2020. On September 17, 2020, the court issued notice of its 

intent to dismiss the petition per Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, and granted counsel’s 

petition to withdraw. 

Before the court formally denied relief on his first PCRA petition, 

Appellant filed a second pro se PCRA petition on August 3, 2021.2 The court 

dismissed the first PCRA petition on August 16, 2021. Appellant filed a timely 

notice of appeal. The court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant filed none.

Appellant raises the following four issues on appeal:

Whether the record is ripe for appellate review when the 

PCRA court based its ruling on an outdated no-merit letter 

and corresponding criminal Rule 907 notice where the 

documents: (1) were filed in a prior PCRA proceeding; (2)

did not address the new facts pled in the present PCRA 

proceeding; and (3) did not conform to criminal Rule 907?

Whether the PCRA court erred by failing to file an opinion in 

conformity with appellate Rule 1925(a)?

Whether the PCRA court erred in determining the instant 

PCRA proceeding is patently untimely where Appellant: (1) 

pled facts which were previously unknown; and (2) proved 

that the relevant facts could not have been ascertained 

earlier through the exercise of due diligence?

Whether the PCRA court abused its discretion by refusing to 

hold an evidentiary hearing where Appellant presented 

____________________________________________

2 The court initially denied the second PCRA petition on October 8, 2021. 

However, the court subsequently withdrew that order, and on November 5, 

2021, the court stayed its ruling on the second PCRA petition pending the 

resolution of the instant appeal.
J-S20032-22

- 3 -

disputed material facts which would support claims for 

collateral relief if properly developed on the record?

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

As a preliminary matter, we observe that Appellant’s issues all relate to 

claims relevant to Appellant’s second PCRA petition, because Appellant seems 

to be under the mistaken belief that the court denied his second PCRA 

petition.3 As Appellant’s issues are unrelated to those advanced in his first 

PCRA petition, he has abandoned any issues related to his first PCRA petition

in the current appeal.

4

 Therefore, we affirm the PCRA court’s denial of 

Appellant’s first PCRA petition.

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

3 (See Appellant’s Brief at 11-12) (stating: “Instantly, the PCRA [c]ourt did 

not issue a Rule 907 Notice in response to [Appellant’s] subsequent PCRA 

proceeding.... [T]he PCRA [c]ourt failed to take account that this was a 

subsequent PCRA proceeding”) (emphases in original); (id. at 13) (stating 

“this case must be remanded for an appropriate determination of the facts 

and substance raised in [Appellant’s] ... subsequent PCRA petition”); (id. at 

14) (stating: “The only record document related to dismissal of Appellant’s 

[second] PCRA petition is the [c]ourt’s August 16, 2021, Order denying postconviction relief”); (id. at 18) (stating, incorrectly, that first PCRA petition was 

dismissed September 17, 2020 [which was the date the court issued Rule 907 

notice], and successive PCRA petition was dismissed August 16, 2021). 

4 We note that Appellant’s second PCRA petition, filed August 3, 2021, is still 

pending before the PCRA court. If that petition is ultimately dismissed, 

Appellant may timely appeal from that order raising the issues he has set forth 

here. 
J-S20032-22

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/13/2022