J-S54033-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : SCOTT ALLAN BLACK, :

: Appellant : No. 47 WDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order October 2, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-27-CR-0000046-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 04, 2016 Scott Allan Black (“Black”) appeals, pro se , from the Order dismissing his first Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) Petit ion. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm. On April 27, 2013, Black stabbed Donald Shay and Ma rcelle Edwards to death in a mobile home located in Forest County. The Commonwealth initially sought to pursue capital punishment for t he murders. However, Black subsequently pled guilty to two counts of sec ond-degree murder. The

trial court sentenced Black to two consecutive term s of life in prison. Black did not file a direct appeal. On May 22, 2015, Black filed his first PCRA Petitio n. Joan M. Fairchild, Esquire (“Fairchild”), was appointed as PCRA counse l. Fairchild filed aJ-S54033-16

- 2 -

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, along with a Turner / Finley 1 no-merit letter. Black objected, but the PCRA court granted Fairchil d’s Motion to Withdraw. The PCRA court provided Black with a Pa.R.Crim.P. 9 07 Notice of Intent to

Dismiss the Petition. Black filed a pro se Response, after which the PCRA court dismissed the Petition. Black filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal. On appeal Black raises the following questions for our review, I. [Did the PCRA] court err[] by denying [Black’s] PCRA petition for newly discovered evidence [,which was] based up on a

“ Turner

/ Finley ” letter filed by [Fairchild,] [who had] irreconcilable differences with [Black?] II. [Did] the [PCRA] court erroneously misrepresent [] material facts in defense of the Forest County District Atto rney Elizabeth A. Ziegler [“Ziegler”?] III. [Whether] fraudulent applications and perjury upon three candidates affidavits are a crime[,] and [Black] st ill invokes his right to file a private criminal complaint against an individual who committed such acts that has directly affected him[?] Brief for Appellant at 1 (capitalization omitted). We review orders dismissing PCRA relief under the f ollowing standard: Our standard of review of an order dismissing PCRA relief is whether the record supports the PCRA court's determ ination and whether the PCRA court’s decision is free of legal error. The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record.

Commonwealth v. Lawson , 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).

1 See Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ).J-S54033-16

- 3 -

We will address Black’s first and second claims tog ether. Black argues that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his Petitio n as it failed to properly consider newly discovered evidence. Brief for Appe llant at 4. Black contends that Ziegler’s ineligibility to run for el ection as District Attorney should retroactively nullify and void Black’s two c onvictions of second-degree

murder. Id. at 6-9, 10. Additionally, Black argues that the e xculpatory evidence was unavailable to him at trial as Ziegler ’s fraudulent holding of the District Attorney position, despite the fact that h er home was located outside of the county lines. Id. at 6, 7. Here, Black fails to offer any authority that shows when a District Attorney is disqualified from reelection, his or he r prosecution of cases resulting in convictions must be retroactively over turned. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Additionally, Forest County’s removal of Ziegler from the ballot in 2015 does not impact the entry of Black’s guilty pl ea in 2014. Indeed, during his plea colloquy, Black understood the natu re of the charges to which he was pleading guilty; the underlying factua l basis for the plea; the rights he was foregoing, including presumption of i nnocence and right to trial by a jury; and the ranges of permissible sentences. See Written Guilty Plea Colloquy, 02/03/14, at 1-9; see also Commonwealth v. Bedell , 954 A.2d 1209, 1212 (Pa. Super. 2008) (setting forth the req uirements of a voluntary guilty plea and noting that courts may consider the totality of the circumstances in determining voluntariness of the p lea). Thus, the recordJ-S54033-16

- 4 -

confirms that Black voluntarily and knowingly pled guilty to the murders. See Commonwealth v. McCauley , 797 A.2d 920, 922 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that where the record clearly demonstrates that a guilty plea colloquy was conducted, during which it became evid ent that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him, t he voluntariness of the plea is established). Further, Black’s voluntary guilty plea was accepted by a court with proper jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Khorey , 500 A.2d 462, 464 (Pa. Super. 1985) (concluding that even though the Attorney General lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea and impose s entence); see also

Commonwealth v. Bethea , 828 A.2d 1066, 1074 (Pa. 2003) (stating that “all courts of common pleas have statewide subject matter jurisdiction in cases arising under the Crimes Code.”). 2 Accordingly, Black’s first two

claims are without merit. In his third claim, Black seeks to file a private c riminal complaint against Ziegler and the PCRA court judge. Brief fo r Appellant at 12. However, this claim is waived as it was not raised in Black’s PCRA Petition. See Commonwealth v. Ousley , 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011)

2 We note that Black requests a Grazier hearing. See Commonwealth v. Grazier , 731 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). Brief for Appellant at 5 . However, because Fairchild properly withdrew as counsel unde r Turner / Finley , such a hearing is unnecessary. See Commonwealth v. Robinson , 970 A.2d 455, 456 (Pa. Super. 2009) ( en banc ) (holding that a Grazier hearing can only be held if the attorney did not properly withdraw).J-S54033-16

- 5 -

(stating that issues not raised in a PCRA petition may not be considered on appeal). Further, even if Black properly raised th e claim, it is not cognizable

under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2).

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/4/2016