### J-S77035-16
NON

### -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

1 IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. GREGORY MAURICE WYATT, 

### Appellant No. 1982 MDA2015 Appeal 

### fromthe PCRAOrderOctober 13, 2015 in 

### theCourtofCommon Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No.: CP-22-CR-0003361-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT,J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: 

### FILED OCTOBER

### 24, 

### 2016 Appellant, Gregory Maurice 

### Wyatt, appeals, 

### pro se, 

### from the 

### order of October 13, 2015, which dismissed, 

### without a hearing, his 

### first counseled 

### petition brought under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

### -9546. We 

### affirm. We 

### take the underlying facts and procedural 

### history in this 

### matter from the PCRA 

### court's July 6, 2016 opinion and our independent review of the certified record. The facts 

### underlying Appellant's conviction stem 

### from his May 27, 2013 

### murder and 

### robbery of an acquaintance. (See N.T. 

### Guilty Plea Hearing, 

### 6/02/14, at 8

### -9). On July 26, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a

* Retired SeniorJudgeassigned tothe Superior Court.

### J-S77035-16
criminal information charging 

### Appellant with murder, robbery, possession of

a 

### firearm prohibited, and 

### carrying a 

### firearm 

### without a 

### license.' (See Criminal 

### Information, 7/26/13, at unnumbered page 1). On June 2, 2014, 

### Appellant entered a negotiated 

### guilty plea to one 

### count each of 

### murder of thethird degree, robbery, possession 

### of a 

### firearm prohibited, and 

### carrying a 

### firearm 

### without a license. 

### (See N.T. 

### Guilty Plea Hearing, at 10). In accordance

### with the

### terms ofthe plea, the

### trial court immediatelysentenced 

### Appellant to an 

### aggregate 

### term of incarceration of not less than 

### twenty-five
nor morethan

### fiftyyears. 

### (See

### id. at 14

### -15). On June 12, 2014, 

### Appellantfiled a 

### motion to

### withdraw his 

### guilty plea. A hearing 

### took place on July 11, 2014. At the hearing, 

### Appellant indicated 

### that, when he filed the motion to 

### withdraw his 

### guilty plea to 

### murder of the 

### third degree, he did not understand 

### that the 

### information had charged him 

### with murder generally, and 

### that, if he 

### withdrew his 

### guilty plea, he would expose 

### himself to charges including 

### murder of the 

### first or second degree. 

### (See N.T. Motion Hearing, 

### 7/11/14, at 6

### -7). Based upon 

### this 

### information, Appellantwithdrew his 

### motion to 

### withdraw his 

### guilty plea. 

### (See 

### id. at 7). 

### Appellant did not

### file a

### directappeal. On June 1, 2015, Appellant, acting

### pro se, filed a

### timely PCRA 

### petition. On June 29, 2015, the PCRA

### courtappointed counselto 

### representAppellant. 

### ' See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 

### 3701(a)(1)(i) and 

### (ii), 

### 6105(a)(1), and 

### 6106(a)(1), respectively. 

## -2

### J-S77035-16

On July 21, 2015, PCRA counsel 

### submitted a 

### Turner/Finley2 

### letter. On 

### September 4, 2015, the PCRA

### court issued notice

### of its 

### intentto dismiss

### the petition and allow PCRA counsel to 

### withdraw, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure

### 907(1). Appellant did not file a response to the Rule 907 notice but did file a 

### motion seeking 

### appointmentof new counsel, which the PCRA 

### court denied. On October 13, 2015, the PCRA 

### court dismissed 

### Appellant's PCRA petition.3 The 

### instant,

### timely appeal followed. On December29, 2015, the PCRA 

### court ordered 

### Appellant to file a concise 

### statement of 

### errors complained of

on appeal. 

### See Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b). Appellant filed a 

### timely Rule 

### 1925(b) 

### statementon 

### January 15, 2016. OnJuly 6, 2016, the PCRA 

### court issued an opinion. 

### See Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(a) On appeal,

### Appellant raisesthefollowing questions

### forour review.

2 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 

### 1988); 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

3 In its October 13, 2015 

### order, the 

### trial court did not address counsel's 

### petition to 

### withdraw. (See Order, 

### 10/13/15, at 

### unnumbered page 1). However, in its Rule 907 notice, the

### trial courtspecificallyfound 

### that counsel had complied 

### with the dictates of 

### Turner 

### /Finley and announced its 

### intention to allow counsel to 

### withdraw. (See Order, 

### 9/04/15, at 

### unnumbered page 1). Given 

### this, in the 

### interest of

### judicial economywe will regard as done 

### what ought to have been done and deem the 

### trial court's September 4, 2015 

### order as 

### granting counsel's 

### petition to 

### withdraw. See 

### Zitney v. 

### Appalachian Timber Products, 

### Inc., 72 A.3d 281, 285 (Pa. Super. 

### 2013).



## -3

### J-S77035-16

1. 

### Whether the [PCRA] 

### court erred 

### for dismissing 

### Appellant's [PCRA 

### petition] based on counsel's 

### [Turner /Finley] letter, when 

### Appellant's claims had 

### merit and the

### trial courtfailed to make an 

### independent review ofthe 

### record[,] which 

### violated the mandatesof

### [Turner /Finley]? 2. 

### Whether the [PCRA] 

### court erred 

### for dismissing 

### Appellant's [PCRA 

### petition] based on counsel's 

### [Turner /Finley] letter, when 

### Appellant's claim not only had 

### merit but the [PCRA] 

### court failed to 

### conduct 

### [an] evidentiary hearing to 

### determine if 

### Appellant's 

### [guilty] plea was invalid and 

### undermined by counsel's erroneous 

### advice[?] 

### (Appellant's Brief, 

### at5) 

### (unnecessarycapitalization omitted).4 

### Appellant appeals 

### fromthe denial 

### of his

### first PCRA 

### petition. We review the denial of a post-conviction 

### petition to 

### determine whether the record 

### supportsthe PCRA

### court's findings and 

### whether its 

### order is 

### otherwisefree of legal 

### error. See

### Commonwealth v. 

### Faulk, 21 A.3d 1196, 1199 (Pa. Super.

4 We 

### direct Appellant's 

### attention to Pa.R.A.P. 2119, which addresses the 

### requirements for the 

### argument section of 

### appellate briefs and provides, in 

### relevant part as

### follows: 

### Rule

### 2119.

### Argument (a) General Rule. The 

### argument shall be divided into as

### many partsas

### there arequestions to be

### argued[.] Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2119(a). "The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally 

### that each question an 

### appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of 

### pertinent 

### authority." 

### Estate

## ofHaiko v. 

### McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 

### 2002). Here, 

### Appellant's

### "Statement of Matters" lists two issues. 

### (Appellant's Brief, at 5). However, the 

### argument portion of his 

### brief combines the issues in 

### violation of Rule 2119. 

### (See 

### id. at 14

### -18). Appellant's combinationof issues presents a confusing 

### format, but does not 

### hamperappellate review, and weshall proceed 

### with ourdiscussion.


## -4

### J-S77035-16 2011). To be eligible 

### for relief pursuant to the PCRA, 

### Appellant must establish, inter a/ia, 

### that his 

### conviction or sentence resulted 

### from one or more of the 

### enumerated errors or defects found in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9543(a)(2). See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9543(a)(2). He 

### must also establish 

### that the issues raised in the PCRA 

### petition have not been 

### previously litigated or waived. 

### See42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9543(a)(3). An 

### allegation of 

### error "is waived if the 

### petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before 

### trial, at 

### trial, during 

### unitary review, on appeal or in a 

### prior state postconviction proceeding." 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

### 9544(b). Further,

. . . a PCRA 

### petitioner is not 

### automatically entitled to an 

### evidentiary hearing. We review the PCRA 

### court's decision dismissing a 

### petition 

### without a hearing 

### for an abuse of 

### discretion. 

### [T]he right to an 

### evidentiary hearing on a post- 

### conviction petition is not absolute. 

### It is 

### within the PCRA

### court's discretionto decline to hold a hearing if the 

### petitioner's claim is 

### patentlyfrivolous and has no 

### support either in 

### the record or 

### other evidence. 

### It is the 

### responsibility ofthe reviewing 

### court on appeal to examine each issue raised in the PCRA 

### petition in 

### light of the record 

### certified before it in 

### order to 

### determine if the PCRA 

### court erred in its 

### determination 

### that there were no genuine issues of 

### material fact in 

### controversy and in denying 

### relief 

### without conducting an

### evidentiary hearing. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

### (citations 

### omitted). In the 

### argument section 

### of his 

### brief, Appellant claims he received 

### ineffective assistance of plea counsel because counsel gave him erroneous 

## -5

### J-S77035-16
advice

### thatthe

### trial courtwould 

### onlysentence him to a

### term of 

### incarceration of not lessthan 

### fifteen nor morethan

### thirtyyears. 

### (SeeAppellant's Brief, at 17). 

### Appellant also appears to contend 

### that he was coerced into 

### withdrawing his 

### motion to 

### withdraw his 

### guilty plea because the Commonwealth 

### threatened to charge him 

### with murder of the 

### first degree. (See

### Appellant's Brief, at 17). However, 

### Appellant has waivedthese claims. 

### Appellant did not includethese claims in his 

### statementofthequestions involved. (See 

### Appellant's Brief, at 8). The Rules 

### of Appellate Procedure provide 

### that issues to be resolved 

### must be included in the 

### statement of questions involved or 

### "fairly suggested" by it. Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2116(a). These issues are not included in the 

### statement of questions involved, nor are 

### they 

### "fairly suggested" by it. Thus, we hold 

### that Appellant has waived these claims. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding claim waived when not included in 

### statement of questions 

### involved). In any

### event,the claims lack

### merit "A 

### criminal defendant hasthe 

### right to 

### effective counsel during a plea process as well as during 

### trial." Commonwealth v. 

### Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365, 369 (Pa. Super. 2006) 

### (citation 

### omitted). Further, 

### "[a]llegations of 

### ineffectiveness in connection 

### with the 

### entry of a 

### guilty plea will serve as a basis 

### for reliefonly if the ineffectiveness caused the defendant to 

### enter an 

### involuntary or 

### unknowing plea." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

### (citation

### omitted). Also,

### "[w]here the defendant 

## -6

### J-S77035-16

enters his plea on the advice of counsel, the 

### voluntariness of the plea depends upon 

### whether counsel's advice was

### within the rangeof competence demandedof

### attorneys in

### criminal cases." 

### Id. (internal quotation marks and 

### citations

### omitted). We presume 

### that counsel is 

### effective, and 

### Appellant bearsthe burden to proveotherwise. 

### See

### Commonwealthv. 

### Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185, 1195 (Pa. 

### 2012). The 

### testfor ineffective assistance ofcounsel is the same under both the Federal and Pennsylvania 

### Constitutions. See 

### Strickland v. 

### Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 

### (1984); 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Jones, 815A.2d 598, 611 (Pa. 

### 2002). An 

### appellantmust demonstrate

### that: (1) his 

### underlying claim is 

### of arguable 

### merit; (2) the 

### particular course 

### of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis designed to 

### effectuate his 

### interests; and (3) but

### for counsel's 

### ineffectiveness, 

### there is a reasonable 

### probability

### thatthe outcome ofthe proceedingswould have been 

### different. See

### Commonwealth v. 

### Pierce, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (Pa. 

### 2001), abrogated on 

### othergrounds, 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 

### 2002). A 

### failure to 

### satisfy any prong of 

### the test 

### for ineffectiveness will require rejection ofthe claim. 

### See

### Jones,

### supra at 611. Where, as here, 

### Appellant pleaded 

### guilty, in 

### order to 

### satisfy the prejudice requirement, he 

### must show 

### that "there is a reasonable 

### probability that, but 

### for counsel's 

### errors, hewould not have pleaded

### guilty and would have insisted on going to 

### trial." Rathfon, supra at 370 

### (citation omitted). Here, 

### Appellant has not 

## -7

### J-S77035-16

shown 

### thatthere is arguable 

### merit to his claim 

### that he received 

### erroneous advice

### from counsel

### with respecttothe prospective sentence. We have held 

### that where the record 

### clearly shows 

### that the 

### court conducted a 

### thorough 

### guilty plea 

### colloquy and 

### that the 

### defendant understood his 

### rights and the nature ofthe chargesagainst him, the plea is 

### voluntary. See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### McCauley, 797 A.2d 920, 922 (Pa. Super. 

### 2001). In examining whether the 

### defendant understood the nature and consequences of his plea, we look to the 

### totality of the circumstances. 

### See 

### id. At a 

### minimum, the 

### trial court must inquire into the following six
areas:(1) Does the 

### defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading 

### guilty? (2) Is

### there afactual basis

### forthe plea? (3) Does the 

### defendant understand 

### that he has a 

### rightto 

### trial by

### jury? (4) Does the 

### defendant understand 

### that he is presumed innocent until he is found 

### guilty? (5) Is the 

### defendant aware 

### of the permissible ranges of sentences and

### /orfines

### forthe offensecharged? (6) Is the 

### defendant aware

### thatthe

### judge is not bound by the 

### terms of any plea 

### agreement tendered unless 

### the 

### judge acceptssuch agreement? 

### Id. (citation

### omitted); see

### also Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, Comment. Defense counsel orthe 

### attorneyfor the Commonwealth, as 

### permitted by the court, may conduct this 

### examination. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, 

## -8

### J-S77035-16
Comment. Moreover, the 

### examination may consist of both a 

### written colloquy

### thatthe 

### defendant read, 

### completed, and signed, and made a 

### partof the record; and an on-the-record oral 

### examination. See

### id. Appellant contends 

### that he received 

### erroneous advice 

### from counsel 

### thatthe 

### trial court would sentence him to a 

### term of 

### incarceration ofnot less than 

### fifteen nor more than 

### thirty years. 

### (See Appellant's Brief, at 17). However, the record does not

### supportthisassertion. At the plea 

### hearing, the Commonwealth informed Appellant of the maximum possible 

### for sentence 

### for each offense, and 

### Appellantagreed 

### that he understood them. 

### (See N.T. 

### Guilty Plea Hearing, at 3

### -5). The 

### Commonwealth specifically stated 

### that, under the negotiated plea 

### agreement,the

### trial courtwould sentence

### Appellantto an 

### aggregate

### term of incarceration of not less than 

### twenty-five nor more than 

### fifty years. 

### (See 

### id. at 7). 

### Appellant agreed 

### that he understood 

### that. (See

### id.). Following 

### sentencing, the 

### trial court asked if 

### the sentence was in accord 

### with the negotiated plea, defense counsel said it was, and 

### Appellantdid not

### object to this 

### statement. (See

### id. at 14

### -15). On July 11, 2014, the 

### trial court held a hearing on 

### Appellant's motion to 

### withdraw his 

### guilty plea. At no 

### point during 

### that hearing did 

### Appellant object to his sentence or indicate 

### that plea counsel had misled him 

### with respectto his sentence. 

### (See N.T. Motion Hearing, at 2

### -10). Further,

### there is nothing inthe record which 

### demonstrates

### thatthe Commonwealth coerced 

## -9

### J-S77035-16 Appellant into 

### withdrawing his 

### motion to 

### withdraw his 

### guilty plea. Rather, the 

### Commonwealth specifically stated

### that it had 

### "no 

### objection"to 

### Appellant withdrawing the 

### guilty plea. 

### (See 

### id. at 2). Defense counsel then stated 

### that he had explained to 

### Appellant

### that if he 

### withdrew his 

### guilty plea, the Commonwealth would pursue a charge of 

### murder ofthe 

### first degree. 

### (See 

### id. at 3). When 

### questioned,Appellant 

### affirmatively stated 

### that he wished to 

### withdraw his 

### motion because he had not 

### previously understood

### that hecould be facing charges 

### of 

### murder of the 

### first or second degree. 

### (See 

### id. at 7). Thus,

### Appellant's claims 

### that he received 

### incorrect advice

### from counsel 

### with respect to his sentence and 

### that he was 

### threatened and

### /or coerced into 

### withdrawing his 

### motionto 

### withdraw his

### guilty plea lack 

### merit. Moreover, the record 

### demonstrates 

### that, in the 

### totality of the circumstances, Appellant's 

### guilty plea was 

### voluntary, knowing and 

### intelligent. Appellant, after being 

### informed of all his 

### rights, stated 

### that he wished to plead 

### guilty. (See N.T. 

### Guilty Plea Hearing, at 7). He acknowledged at 

### the plea 

### colloquy

### that he understood 

### that hewas giving up his 

### right to 

### trial by 

### jury or by 

### the court sitting as 

### the finder of 

### fact; relinquishing his 

### right to file pre

### -trial motions; and knew the sentencing ranges. 

### (See 

### id. at 3

### -7). He stated 

### that no one forced or

### threatened him. 

### (See 

### id. at 8). 

### Appellant agreed 

### that he understood 

### that the 

### trial court could sentence himto consecutive sentences and 

### that he would have 

### limited appellate rights. (See

### id. at 4

### -7).

- 10 -

### J-S77035-16

The

### statements made during a plea 

### colloquy bind a 

### criminal defendant. See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Muhammad, 794 A.2d 378, 384 (Pa. Super. 

### 2002). Thus, a 

### defendant cannot assert grounds 

### for withdrawing the plea 

### that contradict statements made at 

### that time. See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Stork, 737 A.2d 789, 790-91 (Pa. Super. 

### 1999), appeal denied, 764 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 

### 2000). Further, 

### "[t]he law does not require 

### that appellant be pleased 

### with the outcome of his decision to 

### enter a plea 

### of

### guilty: 'All 

### that is required is 

### that [appellant's] decision to plead 

### guilty be 

### knowingly, 

### voluntarily and 

### intelligently made.

# ' Commonwealth v. 

### Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1996) (en banc), 

### appeal denied, 701 A.2d 577 (Pa. 1997) 

### (citation 

### omitted). Here, 

### there is nothing on the record to 

### support Appellant's contention 

### that his plea was 

### either coerced or invalid. 

### See 

### McCauley, 

### supra at 922. Thus, his claim 

### that he received 

### ineffective assistanceof plea counsel lacks 

### merit. See

### Jones,

### supra at611. 

### Appellant also argues 

### that the PCRA 

### court erred in dismissing his 

### petition 

### without an 

### evidentiary hearing. 

### (See Appellant's Brief, at 5, 18). The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provide the PCRA 

### court with the discretion to dismiss a PCRA 

### petition 

### without an 

### evidentiary hearing if it is 

### patently 

### without merit. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Because 

### Appellant's ineffective assistance 

### of counsel claims lack 

### merit, the PCRA 

### court properly found 

### that he was not 

### entitled to an 

### evidentiary hearing. 

### See 

### Miller,supra at992.

### J-S77035-16 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we 

### affirm the PCRA 

### court's dismissal 

### ofAppellant's PCRA 

### petition

### without a hearing. Order

### affirmed.
Judgment Entered. 

## / J seph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary

Date: 

### 10/24/2016

- 12 -