J

- S35034

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. MICHAEL DAVIS, Appellant No. 24 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order June 2 , 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No.: CP

- 23

- CR

- 0003651

- 2007

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. * MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2015 Appellant, Michael Davis, appeals pro se from the order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546. We affirm. We summarize the factual and procedural history o f this case from the PCRA court’s opinion and our own independent review of the record as follows. On January 20, 2007, the victim, after ignoring the front doorbell and the backdoor buzzer, interrupted Appellant as he attempted to enter the victim’s resi dence by using a screwdriver to pry open a bedroom window. Appellant ran across the street, entered the office of a nearby construction yard, asked for someone named Tony, and then stole a truck from the yard.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S35034

- 15

- 2

-

The victim called the police who searched th e area and pursued the truck. Appellant led the police on a chase, struck two vehicles, and was arrested after being struck by a police car. The officers found the screwdriver and two syringes in Appellant’s possession. On April 15, 2008, Appellant waive d his right to a jury trial. On the same day, the court convicted Appellant of attempted burglary, possession of an instrument of crime, receiving stolen property, possession of drug paraphernalia, and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. 1 On June 10, 2008, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of not less than twenty

- five nor more than fifty years’ imprisonment. The attempted burglary was Appellant’s third crime of violence conviction. The trial court imposed the mandatory mini mum sentence of at least twenty

- five years’ total confinement. ( See PCRA Court Opinion, 12/15/14, at 3

- 4); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a counseled direct appeal on July 9, 2008. On January 5, 2010, this Court affirmed the j udgment of sentence. ( See Commonwealth v. Davis , 991 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2010) (unpublished memorandum)). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied leave to appeal

____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 907, 3925, 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)( 32), and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733, respectively.J

- S35034

- 15

- 3

-

on November 3, 2010. ( See Commonwealth v. Davis , 9 A.3d 627 (Pa. 2010)). On January 6, 2011, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition positing claims of constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, illegal sentence, and lack of jurisdiction. The PCRA court appointed counsel on January 21, 2011. On April 26, 2011, counsel f iled an application to withdraw with a supporting Turner/Finley 2 no merit letter. Appellant filed
pro se amendments to his PCRA petition on August 10, 2011 and December 2, 2013. The PCRA court permitted counsel to withdraw and notified Appellant on January 29, 2014 of its intention to dismiss his PCRA petition without a hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant filed a pro se respon se on April 21, 2014. The PCRA court dismissed the petition on June 2, 2014. Appellant timely appealed on June 19, 2014. 3 Appellant raises the following question for our review: 4

____________________________________________ 2 Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ).

3 Pursuant to the PCRA court’s order, Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement on Augu st 4, 2014. The court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion on December 15, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

4 Appellant’s brief lists one issue with four subparts. ( See Appellant’s Brief, at 7). However, he argues his claims as one overarching question (Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- S35034

- 15

- 4

-

[]Did the PCRA court commit an error of law, or abuse [its] discretion, in p ermitting PCRA counsel to withdraw with a no merit response, when the following underlying issues retained merit[:] [I.] Should PCRA counsel be found to have provided ineffective assistance of counsel when: A) [] Counsel refused to investigate, plead[,] and attempt to prove the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in failing to address trial counsel’s ineffectiveness regarding his failure to [thoroughly] prepare and provide proper evidentiary testing of a factual account by a police officer during the tri al? B) Counsel failed to address a layered ineffective counsel claim that trial counsel erred in failing to present a suggestion to the fact finder that they find appellant guilty of criminal trespass rather than criminal attempted burglary, if guilt was to be found at all? C) Counsel erred in failing to argue that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to file a reply brief in the direct appeal to counter misstatements made by the Commonwealth in their brief[,] which ultimately foun d there [sic] way into the language of the decision of [this] [C]ourt? [II.] Should this Court rule the mandatory sentence imposed upon Appellant under 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 9714
(Footnote Continued)

_______________________ containin g two issues with the first issue containing three subparts. ( See id. at 10

- 31). Therefore, we have amended his questions to reflect his arguments and for ease of reference.J

- S35034

- 15

- 5

- [] as an illegal sentence and [render] the entire sentence void? (Appellant’s Bri ef, at 7) (most capitalization omitted). Before we may address the merits of Appellant’s issues, we must determine whether he properly preserved them for our review. Rule 1925(b) provides, in relevant part: (b) Direction to file statement of errors compla ined of on appeal; instructions to the appellant and the trial court

. — If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal (“judge”) desires clarification of the errors complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appe llant to file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal (“Statement”).
* * * (2) Time for filing and service.

— The judge shall allow the appellant at least 21 days from the date o f the order’s entry on the docket for the filing and service of the Statement. Upon application of the appellant and for good cause shown, the judge may enlarge the time period initially specified or permit an amended or supplemental Statement to be filed. . . . In extraordinary circumstances, the judge may allow for the filing of a Statement or amended or supplemental Statement nunc pro tunc. (3) Contents of order.

— The judge’s order directing the filing and service of a Statement shall specify: (i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge’s order within which the appellant must file and serve the Statement; (ii) that the Statement shall be filed of record; (iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1 );J

- S35034

- 15

- 6

- (iv) that any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived. 4) Requirements; waiver. * * * (ii) The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the app ellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge
* * * (vii) Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2), (3), (4)(ii) and (vii); see also Commonwealth v. Arrington , 86 A.3d 831, 849 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied , 135 S.Ct. 479 (2014). Here, the record reflects that on June 19, 2014, the trial court issued an order in technical compliance with Rule 1925(b) requiring Appellant to file a statement “no later than twenty

- one (21) days from the date hereof.” (Concise Statement Order, 6/19/14 , at 1). The order provided that “any issue not properly included in the statement timely filed and served in compliance with this order and Pa.R.A.P. No. 1925(b) shall be deemed waived.” ( Id. at 2) (capitalization omitted and emphasis in original). On J uly 8, 2014, due to Appellant’s limited ability to access the appellate rules caused by his incarceration, he requested an extension within which to file his Rule 1925(b) statement. ( See Motion for Extension of Time, 7/08/14, at 1). The PCRA court grante d him an extension andJ

- S35034

- 15

- 7

-

required Appellant to file a statement “no later than thirty (30) days from July 8, 2014.” (Concise Statement Order, 7/09/14, at unnumbered page 1). The order provided that “ any issue not properly included in the statement timely f iled and served in compliance with this order as well as Pa.R.A.P. No. 1925(b) shall be deemed waived .” ( Id. at unnumbered page 2) (capitalization omitted and emphases in original). Appellant filed his timely concise statement on August 4, 2014. Here, Ap pellant’s claim that PCRA counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel is not included in his Rule 1925(b) statement. ( See Appellant’s Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 8/04/14, at 1

- 2). Instead, he merely asserts that trial counsel was ineffective. ( See id. ). Accordingly, all of Appellant’s claims of ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (b)(4)(vii); Arrington , supra at 849. Moreover, they would not merit relief. Our standard of review is well

- settled: [A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by the record, and reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are free from legal error. The scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the trial level. Commonwealth v. Freeland , 106 A.3d 768, 775 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). A PCRA petitioner is eligible for relief if the cla im is cognizable under the PCRA and has not been previously litigated or waived. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.J

- S35034

- 15

- 8

-

§§ 9543 and 9544; see also Commonwealth v. Ligons , 971 A.2d 1125, 1137 (Pa. 2009). “ We also note that 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.” Commonwealth v. Miller , 102 A.3d 988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). To succeed on an ineffective assistance of couns el claim, a petitioner must overcome the presumption that counsel is effective and demonstrate that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Commonwealth v. Bennett , 57 A.3d 1185, 1195 (Pa. 20 12). An appellant must demonstrate that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the appellant suffered actual prejudice as a result. See Commonwealth v. Pierce , 527 A.2d 973, 975 (Pa. 1987). A failure to satisfy any prong of the Pierce test will require rejection of the claim. See Commonwealth v. Spotz , 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014). In Appellant’s first claim, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of cou nsel because his PCRA counsel failed to investigate, plead and attempt to prove trial counsel’s failure to impeach Colwyn Borough Police Officer Steven Sibbett’s testimony. ( See Appellant’s Brief, at 10

- 21). The PCRA court properly found that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague to allow for meaningful review where it did not identify theJ

- S35034

- 15

- 9

-

testimony. ( See PCRA Ct. Op., at 16); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Appellant’s claim would be waived for that reason as well. Furthermore, the

recor d supports the court’s determination that Appellant failed to plead and prove all three prongs of the Pierce test where trial counsel in fact challenged Officer Sibbett’s testimony and there was overwhelming evidence identifying Appellant as the perpetrato r. Appellant’s first claim would not merit relief. In his second claim, Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because PCRA counsel failed to address trial counsel’s failure to argue that the evidence was sufficient for crimin al trespass but not attempted burglary. ( See Appellant’s Brief, at 21

- 24). Our independent review of the record reveals that this Court addressed the merits of Appellant’s sufficiency argument on direct appeal. ( See Davis , supra at *6 (holding that “App ellant’s attempted burglary conviction was supported by adequate evidence[.]”)). Accordingly, there is no arguable merit to Appellant’s sufficiency claim. Additionally, the PCRA court properly found that trial counsel did attack the legal sufficiency of the attempted burglary charge during closing argument. ( See PCRA Ct. Op., at 27). The record belies Appellant’s claim. Therefore, Appellant has failed to plead and prove the arguable merit prong of the Pierce test where the record contradicts Appellant’ s instant argument. Appellant’s second claim would not merit relief.J

- S35034

- 15

- 10

-

In his third claim, Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from PCRA counsel because he failed to argue that direct appeal counsel did not file a reply brief to address a new matter in the direct appeal, which resulted in this Court adopting the Commonwealth’s factual misstatements that his hand was inside the home. ( See Appellant’s Brief, at 25

- 28). Again, the PCRA court properly found that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague to allow for meaningful review where it did not identify the alleged misstatements. ( See PCRA Ct. Op., at 38); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Furthermore, the record supports the court’s determination that Appellant f ailed to plead and prove all three prongs of the Pierce test where the victim testified repeatedly that Appellant’s hand was underneath the open window. Accordingly, we would find no abuse of discretion in the PCRA court’s denial of relief on Appellant’s f irst issue even were it not waived. In his remaining issue, Appellant argues that the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence is illegal pursuant to Alleyne v. United
States , 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). ( See Appellant’s Brief, at 30

- 31). We disagree. “[W]e note that issues pertaining to Alleyne go directly to the legality of the sentence . . . [and] are questions of law[.] . . . Our standard of review over such questions is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. ” Commonwealth v. Cardwell , 105 A.3d 748 , 750 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).J

- S35034

- 15

- 11

-

Furthermore, . . . [N]either our Supreme Court, nor the United States Supreme Court has held that Alleyne is to be applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence had become final. . . . This Court has recognized that a new rule of constitutional law is applied retroactively to cases on collateral review only if the United States Supreme Cour t or our Supreme Court specifically holds it to be retroactively applicable to those cases. Miller , supra at 995 (citations omitted). Here, Appellant was sentenced on June 10, 2008. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on January 5, 2010, and our Supreme Court denied allocator on November 3, 2010. Appellant did not seek a writ of
certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, Appellant’s judgment of sentence became final on February 1, 2011, when the period for him to file a petition for a writ of certiorari expired. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3). As already noted, Alleyne was not decided until 2013. Accordingly, Alleyne does not apply to Appellant. See Miller , supra at 995. 5
Order affirmed.

____________________________________________ 5 We note that “ [n]o Pennsylvania case has applied Alleyne to sentences enhanced solely by prior convictions.” Commonwealth v. Lane , 81 A.3d 974, 976 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied , 92 A.3d 811 (Pa. 2014).J

- S35034

- 15

- 12

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/9/2015