J-S69038-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

EDMUND GRENIER, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 858 WDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 18, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000171-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

EDMUND GRENIER, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 859 WDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 18, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000045-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2017

Appellant Edmund Grenier, Jr., appeals from the order entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County denying his first petitions filed 

under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, 

with regard two cases: lower court docket numbers CP-33-CR-0000045-
J-S69038-17

- 2 -

2014 and CP-33-CR-0000171-2015.1 For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On March 5, 

2014, the Commonwealth filed an Information at lower court docket number 

CP-33-CR-0000045-2014, charging Appellant with various crimes in 

connection with his failure to order, deliver, or install various grave site 

markers, which had been paid in full by the victims. On July 2, 2014, 

Appellant, who was represented by counsel, proceeded to a guilty plea 

hearing at which he entered a negotiated guilty plea to five counts of 

deceptive business practices, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4107(a)(2). The 

Commonwealth indicated that, in exchange for Appellant’s plea, the parties 

had agreed that Appellant would receive a sentence of five years’ probation 

on each count, to run concurrently to each other, and after three years, 

assuming he had made full restitution, early release would be considered. 

N.T. 7/2/14, at 2. The trial court accepted the parties’ plea agreement and 

sentenced Appellant in accordance therewith on that same date.2 Appellant 

did not file a direct appeal. 

On April 10, 2015, new charges were filed against Appellant with 

regard to various crimes in connection with his failure to order, deliver, or 

____________________________________________

1 As more fully discussed infra, the PCRA court sua sponte consolidated the 

PCRA proceedings in the court below. 

2 The trial court also imposed restitution as to each victim. 
J-S69038-17

- 3 -

install grave site markers as to new victims, and the Commonwealth filed an 

Information at lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015. 

Appellant, who was represented by counsel, entered a negotiated guilty plea 

on July 13, 2015, to two counts of deceptive business practices. The 

Commonwealth indicated that, in exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea, the 

parties had agreed that Appellant would receive a sentence of time served to 

twenty-four months less one day, to be followed by eight years and one day 

of probation, as to each count; the sentences to run concurrently. N.T., 

7/13/15, at 3. The trial court accepted the parties’ plea agreement and 

sentenced Appellant in accordance therewith on that same date.3 Appellant 

did not file a direct appeal; however, on May 12, 2016, he filed a timely pro 

se PCRA petition as to lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b). The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed 

an amended petition on Appellant’s behalf.

As to lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000045-2014, Appellant, 

who was represented by counsel, proceeded to a probation revocation 

hearing. At the hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant’s new 

convictions from lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015 

constituted a violation of his probation, and accordingly, the trial court 

revoked Appellant’s probation at lower court docket number CP-33-CR-

____________________________________________

3 The trial court also imposed restitution. 
J-S69038-17

- 4 -

0000045-2014. The trial court then sentenced Appellant to five years to ten 

years in prison as to each count, the sentences to run consecutively. Thus, 

Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate of twenty-five years to fifty years 

in prison. Appellant filed an appeal to this Court from the September 16, 

2015, probation revocation sentence, and on October 6, 2016, this Court 

affirmed.4 See Commonwealth v. Grenier, No. 1626 WDA 2015 

(Pa.Super. filed 10/6/16) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant did not file 

a petition for allowance of appeal to our Supreme Court; however, on

November 18, 2016, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, and the 

PCRA court appointed counsel.

5

 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b).

On November 4, 2016, Appellant proceeded to a PCRA evidentiary 

hearing at which Appellant and guilty plea counsel testified. By order 

entered on February 9, 2017, the PCRA court, indicating Appellant’s cases 

____________________________________________

4 On appeal, in his sole appellate issue, Appellant contended the trial court 

abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence upon the revocation 

of his probation. This Court concluded there was no merit to Appellant’s 

claim. 

5

 We note that a probation revocation proceeding may give rise to a limited 

PCRA remedy, but only in limited situations will a probation revocation “reset 

the clock” on a PCRA petition. Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059, 

1062 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2011). While an offender may file a PCRA petition 

within one year following the conclusion of the direct review of any new 

sentence imposed following a revocation of probation, the only issues that 

may be raised in such a PCRA petition relate to the validity of the revocation 

proceeding and the legality of any new sentence that was imposed. 

Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 592 (Pa.Super. 2007);

Commonwealth v. Ballard, 814 A.2d 1242, 1244 (Pa.Super. 2003). 
J-S69038-17

- 5 -

were related, sua sponte consolidated Appellant’s PCRA petitions filed at 

lower court docket numbers CP-33-CR-0000045-2014 and CP-33-CR0000171-2015. 

On May 9, 2017, the PCRA court held an additional PCRA evidentiary 

hearing at which Appellant and guilty plea counsel testified. By order and 

opinion entered on May 18, 2017, the PCRA court denied the PCRA petitions 

filed in both cases. Appellant filed timely, counseled notices of appeal to this 

Court on June 9, 2017. All Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements have been met. 

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Did the [PCRA] court err in failing to find that [Appellant] was 

denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that he was 

hereby prejudiced and entitled to a new trial, at No. CP-33-

CR-0000171-2015, when his trial counsel failed to adequately 

advise [Appellant] of the consequences of entering guilty 

pleas at No. CP-33-CR-0000171-2015 relative to the criminal 

case he was then serving probationary sentences on at No. 

CP-33-CR-0000045-2014?

2. If [the] court grants [Appellant] a new trial at No. CP-33-CR0000171-2015, due to the ineffectiveness of his plea counsel, 

should [Appellant’s] revocation of probation re-sentences at 

No. CP-33-CR-0000045-2014 be set aside as said convictions 

at No. CP-33-CR-0000171-2015 were the sole basis for the 

revocation of [Appellant’s] probationary sentences at No. CP33-CR-0000045-2014?

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, we 

consider the record “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the 

PCRA level.” Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865, 872 (Pa.Super. 

2015) (quotations marks and quotation omitted). This Court is limited to 
J-S69038-17

- 6 -

determining whether the evidence of record supports the conclusions of the 

PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. 

Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2012). “Generally, we are bound 

by a PCRA court’s credibility determinations. However, with regard to a 

court’s legal conclusions, we apply a de novo standard.” Commonwealth 

v. Johnson, 635 Pa. 665, 139 A.3d 1257, 1272 (2016) (quotation marks 

and quotations omitted). 

We conduct review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims under 

the following legal precepts:

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. To prevail on an ineffectiveness

claim, the petitioner has the burden to prove that (1) the 

underlying substantive claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel

whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a 

reasonable basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) 

the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficient 

performance. The failure to satisfy any one of the prongs will 

cause the entire claim to fail.

Commonwealth v. Benner, 147 A.3d 915, 919–20 (Pa.Super. 2016)

(quotation marks, quotations, and citations omitted). 

Additionally:

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. Where the defendant enters his plea on the 

advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on 

whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence 

demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.
J-S69038-17

- 7 -

Thus, to establish prejudice, the defendant must show that there 

is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he 

would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going 

to trial. The reasonable probability test is not a stringent one; it 

merely refers to a probability sufficient to undermine confidence 

in the outcome.

Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 192 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted).

In the case sub judice, Appellant claims his counsel was ineffective at 

the guilty plea stage with regard to Appellant’s case at lower court docket 

number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015. In this regard, Appellant argues that he 

was not informed of the collateral consequence of his plea (that the trial 

court could revoke his probationary sentences imposed for his convictions at 

lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000045-2014), and further, had he 

known of the collateral consequence, he would not have pleaded guilty at 

lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015. See Appellant’s Brief 

at 11. We find no relief is due on this claim.

Initially, we note that, in making its credibility determinations, the 

PCRA court found that guilty plea counsel informed Appellant that, by 

entering a guilty plea at lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-

2015, the trial court would revoke Appellant’s probation at lower court 

docket number CP-33-CR-0000045-2014. See PCRA Court Opinion, filed 

5/18/17, at 1-2. The PCRA court’s finding is supported by the record. See

N.T., 11/4/16, at 26-29 (guilty plea counsel testified at PCRA hearing that he 
J-S69038-17

- 8 -

“absolutely without doubt told [Appellant] his probation would be revoked” 

by virtue of entering the guilty plea). 

In any event, our Court has previously held:

Once a guilty plea has been entered and sentence imposed, the 

plea may be withdrawn only upon a showing of manifest 

injustice, which may be established if the plea was not 

voluntarily or knowingly entered. However, the appellate courts 

of the Commonwealth consistently have ruled that a defendant’s 

lack of knowledge of collateral consequences to the entry of a 

guilty plea does not render a plea unknowing or involuntary.

Probation revocation proceedings in an unrelated criminal action 

do not involve sentencing consequences of pleading guilty in the 

action at issue. Thus, we hold that the possibility of probation 

revocation is a collateral consequence to a guilty plea, and the 

fact that a defendant was not informed that he faces such a 

possibility in an unrelated criminal case does not undermine the 

validity of the plea.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 680 A.2d 884, 887 (Pa.Super. 1996) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted) (italics in original). See Barndt, supra

(noting that parole revocation is a collateral consequence and counsel’s 

omission to mention a collateral consequence of a guilty plea does not 

constitute ineffective assistance of counsel).

Accordingly, in the case sub judice, even assuming, arguendo, guilty 

plea counsel did not advise Appellant of the collateral consequence of 

probation revocation, such an omission without more, would not constitute 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Barndt, supra.

This does not end our inquiry, however, as Appellant alternatively 

argues that his counsel directly and specifically misinformed him about the 

consequences of pleading guilty at lower court docket number CP-33-CR-
J-S69038-17

- 9 -

0000171-2015. In this regard, he argues that, upon entry of his guilty plea 

at lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015, counsel 

affirmatively misled him as to the maximum prison sentence he could 

receive upon revocation and resentencing at lower court docket number CP33-CR-0000045-2014. Appellant’s Brief at 14, 17. Appellant specifically 

avers that counsel created the false impression that “his maximum probation 

revocation sentencing exposure, by pleading guilty at CP-33-CR-0000171-

2015, was a 5 to 10 year sentence.” Id. at 11. 

As discussed supra, counsel’s failure to inform a defendant about the 

possibility of probation revocation in an unrelated case is a collateral 

consequence of a guilty plea, and it does not, without more, invalidate the 

plea. Brown, supra. However, we have held that when counsel directly 

misinforms the defendant regarding probation revocation it does 

compromise the validity of the plea. As this Court has held:

As clear as our case law is that counsel’s omission to mention a 

collateral consequence of a guilty plea does not constitute 

ineffectiveness of counsel, it is equally clear that counsel’s 

assistance is constitutionally ineffective when counsel 

misapprehends the consequences of a given plea and misleads 

his client accordingly about those consequences, without regard 

to whether the consequences in question are “direct” or 

“collateral.”

Barndt, 74 A.3d at 196. 

In developing his claim, Appellant points to the fact that, during his 

guilty plea colloquy for the charges at lower court docket number CP-33-CR0000171-2015, the trial court, without objection from guilty plea counsel, 
J-S69038-17

- 10 -

asked Appellant the following question: “Do you understand that you could 

also be given, without anything else, a sentence of no less than five (5) nor 

more than ten (10) years and a $25,000 fine on the case you’re currently on 

probation for?” N.T., 7/13/15, at 5. Also, at the conclusion of the colloquy 

and sentencing for lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015, the 

trial court indicated it was revoking the previously imposed work release and 

Appellant would be detained in the county jail. The trial court then noted, 

without objection, that “[i]f today I had to sentence, I would give you five to 

ten years.” Id. at 10-11.

In explaining the reasons for not objecting, as well as providing the 

PCRA court with what information he gave to Appellant regarding the 

possible sentence that could be imposed upon revocation of Appellant’s 

probation, guilty plea counsel relevantly testified as follows on directexamination by Appellant’s PCRA counsel at the PCRA hearing:

Q: Do you recall representing [Appellant] in this case?

A: I do in both cases.

Q: Okay. I’m speaking specifically about CR-171-2015 where he 

pled guilty and was sentenced on July 13, 2015, to a felony 2 

and a felony 3 deceptive business practices.

A: I don’t recall exactly what he pled to. I do recall the 

situations involving both pleas.

Q: Were you aware at that time in July 13, 2015, or prior that 

[Appellant] was on probation at Case No. CR-45-2014?

A: Yes, if that’s the Jefferson County case, he was on probation 

based upon a plea arrangement that I had negotiated with 

District Attorney Burkett.
J-S69038-17

- 11 -

Q: Did you have any discussion with [Appellant] prior to him 

entering his plea that if he pled guilty to those 2 counts at CR—

Jefferson County CR-171-2015, that his probation could be 

revoked at CR—Jefferson County CR-45-2014?

A: Well, yes, and no. I had no discussions where I would have 

told him his probation could be revoked. I absolutely without 

doubt told him his probation would be revoked. By pleading to 

the second case, his probation on the first case would be 

revoked.

Q: Okay.

A: And before you even ask on the first case, we had many 

discussions about the difference between parole and probation 

especially in the line of a revocation and many discussions about 

whether or not his sentence on the first case could be 

consecutive or concurrent. And I believe if you check the 

sentences, they were concurrent sentences in the first case. But 

without doubt, I explained to him that if he revoked on 

probation, the Judge has free reign. He could give him anything 

up to the statutory max consecutive or concurrent. 

Q: Did you tell him that his overall exposure on that, you’re 

calling the first case, the one that the Judge eventually did 

sentence him on a revocation, that his sentence—his total 

sentence exposure could be 25 to 50 years?

A: I don’t know if I did the math total for him, but I am certain I 

told him on each case that he was on parole or probation for, it 

could run consecutively. 

Q: Now, I’m looking at the July 13th, 2015, transcript of the plea 

and sentence in this case.

A: 171?

Q: Yeah, 171. And this is the court at page five addressing 

[Appellant]. The court says: Do you understand you could also 

be given without anything else a sentence of no less than 5 nor 

more than 10 years and a $25,000 fine on the case you’re 

currently on probation for? [Appellant] answers: Yes, Your 

Honor.

***

When the Judge told [Appellant] [this], what basis, if any, did 

you have not to correct that statement or not to object and 

indicate that’s incorrect? His exposure was basically 25 to 50 

years, not 5 to 10. 
J-S69038-17

- 12 -

A: I don’t know that I didn’t correct it. If it’s not on the record, 

obviously, I didn’t correct it on the record. I don’t have any 

specific recollection of that particular event. However, it’s 

certainly possible I leaned over to [Appellant] and told him that 

could be each count or consecutive or whatever I may have said. 

So I can’t say I had no basis for not correcting it because I may 

have correct it. 

Q: You don’t know, though?

A: I don’t recall that, no. I am absolutely certain we had 

multiple discussions about revocation of probation and how it 

was essentially a free reign to the Judge. 

N.T., 11/4/16, at 26-29.

On cross-examination by the district attorney, Appellant’s guilty plea 

counsel confirmed that he informed Appellant that his entry of a guilty plea 

in lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015 would result in a 

revocation of his probation in lower court docket number CP-33-CR0000045-2014. Id. at 33. Further, he testified that Appellant was “aware 

of what would happen on revocation.” Id. at 33. 

In analyzing Appellant’s claim, the PCRA court specifically stated that it 

found guilty plea counsel’s testimony at the PCRA hearing to be credible. 

PCRA Court Opinion, filed 5/18/17, at 2. Thus, the PCRA court concluded 

that, although the trial court had referenced during the guilty plea colloquy 

for lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015 the possibility of 

Appellant receiving 5 to 10 years in prison upon revocation of his probation 

in lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000045-2014, without specifying 

this was for each count, guilty plea counsel had credibly testified at the PCRA 

hearing that he had, throughout his representation of Appellant, 
J-S69038-17

- 13 -

emphasized that the trial court had “free reign” and could impose 

consecutive statutory maximum sentences upon revocation of the 

probation.6

Moreover, it is noteworthy that, during the July 2, 2014, guilty plea 

colloquy with regard to Appellant’s charges at lower court docket number 

CP-33-CR-0000045-2014, the trial court asked Appellant if he understood 

the guidelines ranges, the maximum punishment, and that, if Appellant 

violated his probation, he “could be incarcerated to the maximum 

punishment.” N.T. 7/2/14, at 2-4. Appellant responded affirmatively to 

each question. Id. The corresponding sentencing guideline forms, which 

Appellant confirmed he reviewed, indicated that each of his five convictions 

for deceptive business practices carried a maximum term of five years to ten 

years in prison. 

Based on the record before it, the PCRA court concluded that “without 

reservation” Appellant fully understood by the time he left the courthouse on 

November 4, 2016 (after his guilty plea to the charges at lower court docket 

number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015) that he had previously pled guilty (at 

lower court docket number CP-33-CR-0000045-2014) to five second-degree 

felonies entailing a maximum aggregate sentence of 25 to 50 years in 

____________________________________________

6

In fact, that is precisely what occurred, and therefore, Appellant received 5 

to 10 years for each count upon resentencing with the sentences to run 

consecutively. Thus, he was sentenced to an aggregate of 25 to 50 years in 

prison. 
J-S69038-17

- 14 -

prison. PCRA Court Opinion, filed 5/18/17, at 3. Accordingly, the PCRA 

court rejected Appellant’s claim that guilty plea counsel misled or created a 

false impression as to the maximum prison term Appellant could receive 

upon the revocation of his probation for lower court docket number CP-33-

CR-0000045-2014, and therefore, guilty plea counsel was not ineffective as 

it related to Appellant’s entry of the guilty plea at lower court docket number 

CP-33-CR-0000171-2015.

We conclude the record supports the PCRA court’s conclusions and its 

ruling is free of legal error.7 Rykard, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/15/2017

____________________________________________

7

In light of our conclusion supra, we need not address Appellant’s remaining 

appellate issue: whether his sentence at lower court docket CP-33-CR0000045-2014 should be set aside due to the alleged ineffectiveness of plea 

counsel with regard to the entry of Appellant’s plea at lower court docket 

number CP-33-CR-0000171-2015. 
J-S69038-17

- 15 -

.