J

- S21045

- 23

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL WILLITS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1657 MDA 2022 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 28, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 41

- CR

- 0000929

- 2017, CP

- 41

- CR

- 0001286

- 2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. * MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: JULY 25, 2023 Michael Willits (Willits) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County (PCRA court) dismissing his petition for post

conviction relief

. After being convicted of several counts pursuant to a plea and a jury trial, Willit s was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 6 to 15
years . Willit s waived his right to a direct appeal and was appointed counsel
to assist him in presenting the claims in his PCRA petition

. PCRA c ounsel withdrew from representation , as did a replacement attorney

. The PCRA court d ismissed the PCRA petition, find ing that all Willit s ’ issues were either waived
or merit less

. Willits now asserts over a dozen claims, pro se , arguing various grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error. We affirm

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S21045

- 23

- 2

- I. O n October 22, 2018, following a jury trial, Willits was found guilty of tampering with physical evidence ; possession of marijuana ; and posse ssion of drug paraphernalia. A week later, Willits entered into an “open” guilty plea
to additional counts of fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement ; endangering the welfare of children (EWOC); possession of drug paraphernalia; possession of marijuana ; and various summar y offenses. He stated at the plea hearing that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty , that his counsel at all stages of the proceedings had performed adequately , and that his decision t o enter a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See Sentencing Hearing Transcript, 10/29/2021, at pp. 10

- 11.
Pursuant to a court order, Willit s was examined by a psychiatrist to determine if he suffered from any behavioral disorders that might justify a more lenient sentence or the implementation of a treatment plan

. See Sentencing Court Order, 10/29/2018, at 2. On February 12, 2019, Willits was sentenced to both cases to an aggregate prison term of 6 to 15 years . The sentence as to each of his convictions was set to run consecutively. The sentencing court indicated that it was imposing these terms after considering the mental health evaluation, a pre

- sen tence report and the determination that Willit s qualified as a repeat felony offender under the Pennsylvania sentencing code. See Sentencing Hearing Transcript, 2/12/2019, at pp. 23

- 29. Significantly, the sentencing court remarked thatJ

- S21045

- 23

- 3

-

according to the mental health evaluation, Willits did not suffer from “a significant serious mental illness ,” and that his crimes, rather, resulted from an impulsive personality and a difficult upb ringing. See id . at pp. 23

- 24. Willits timely filed a motion for reconsider ation , asserting that the
sentence was unduly harsh and excessive in light of his acceptance of responsibility for his crimes and rehabilitative needs . The sentencing court denied the motion and Willits appealed with the aid of counsel

. In the 1925(b) statement filed on behalf of Willits , counsel asserted , inter alia , that the sentence was excessive despite each individual sentence being within the standard range because the court had abused its discretion
in determining that Willits was not amenable to a rehabilitation

- based
sentence

. Before any briefing was filed, Willits waived his right to counsel and chose to represent himself on appeal. On November 20, 2019, this Court dismissed Willits ’ direct appeal for failure to file a brief. On September 21, 2020, Willits timely filed ( pro se ) a petition for post

conviction relief (PCRA petition)

. He was appointed PCRA counsel ( Attorney Trisha Jasper

- Hoover) who, on November 23, 2020 , filed a thorough “no

merit” letter and a petition to withdraw from the case. 1 On January 6, 2021,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 The procedure for counsel’s withdraw al from representation in post

conviction proceedings are outlined in Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 ( Pa. 1988) , and Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ).J

- S21045

- 23

- 4

-

Willit s submitted a response to the no

- merit letter , and o n March 10, 2021, he sough t to have new counsel reappointed to represent him as to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error at sentencing

. However, o n September 16, 2021, Willits also mov ed for a Grazier 2 hearing to determine whether he would be permitted to represent himself

. The PCRA court granted the petition to withdraw filed by Attorney Jasper

- Hoover. In its o pinion and o rder dated October 29, 2021, t he PCRA
court determined that Willits’ ineffectiveness claims (as to the plea ) lacked
merit as a matter of law because he had not articulated how counsel’s conduct had caused him prejudice or what counsel should have done differently. Further, the PCRA court explained that claims of trial court error are not cognizable under the PCRA. The PCRA court , therefore , notified Willits of its intention to dismiss his claims pertaining to trial court error and discretionary aspects of his sentence

. As to Willits’ claims of ineffectiv e PCRA counsel and sentencing counsel , the PCRA court again appointed counsel (A ttorney Julian Allatt ) to represent him. A PCRA hearing and a Grazier hearing were scheduled for March 29, 2022. At the hearing, Attorney Allatt indicated to the PC RA c ourt that after discussing the case with Willits , he did not believe there were any meritorious

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Commonwealth v. Grazier , 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).J

- S21045

- 23

- 5

-

issues to be raised on his be half and , as a result, no amended PCRA petition was filed

. See Hearing Transcript, 3/29/2022, at pp. 12

- 13. When Willits renewed his request to proceed pro se , t he PCRA court conducted a colloqu y to make sure Willits was waiving the right to counsel voluntarily. However, i t became evident that Willits wanted counsel to present his claims. T he PCRA c ourt explained that appointed PCRA counsel only had the option of filing an amended P CRA petition or a Turner / Finley letter giving the reasons why there are no issues of arguable merit to raise. Willits ’ request to proceed pro se was denied and Attorney Allatt was directed to file either a
Turner / Finley no - merit letter or an amended PCRA petition

. See id . at pp. 26

- 27. Immediately after the hearing, Attorney Allatt filed a motion to

w ithdraw from r epresentation , attaching a Turner / Finley no - merit letter and a copy was furnished to Willits

. Upon receiving counsel’s no

- merit letter and a fter rev iew ing the record, the PCRA c ourt determined that Willits ha d failed to raise any meritorious issues in his PCRA p etition and that his petition should be dismissed. T he PCRA court also adopt ed the earlier o pinion and o rder in which Willits was notified of the PCRA c ourt ’ s intention to dismiss his claims on waiver ground s. See PCRA Court Opinion and Order, 10/5/2022, at 1

- 9 ; PCRA Court Opinion and Order, 10/29/2021, at 1

- 11. C ounsel’s motion to withdraw was granted and Willits was advised that his PCRA p etition would be dismissed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule ofJ

- S21045

- 23

- 6

-

Criminal Procedure 907

. The PCRA petition was dismissed o n October 28, 2022 , and o n November 28, 2022, Willits filed a timely pro se notice of appeal of the order of dismissal

. In both his 1925(b) statement and appellate brief, Willits raised 15 claims (and within many of them several sub

- claims) which he contends entitle him to PCRA relief. The PCRA court entered a 1925(a) opinion requesting that its order be affirmed based on the reasoning of its prior opinions. See PCRA 1925(a) Opinion, 1/23/2023, at 1

- 2.
F rom what we can glean , Willits asserts error on the part of the sentencing court , plea /sentencing counsel and both of his PCRA counsel. We have condensed these claims as follows: (a) The sentencing court erred in relying on the mental health evaluation in violation of Willit s’ privacy rights, but also erred in declining to impose a sentence reflective of his rehabilitative needs

. (b) The sentencing court erred by allowing Willits to enter an involuntary plea; sentencing him mor e harshly due to the decision to go to trial on some of the counts; and by not appointing a third attorney to represent him in the PCRA proceedings, forcing him to proceed pro se . ( c ) Sentencing counsel was ineffective in mis advising him to accept guilty pleas as to unrelated offenses for which he was innocent ; advising him to plead guilty to offenses that were improperly graded ; by failing to advise him of his right to seek return of his seized vehicle ; and by depriving him of the ability to participate in preparation of his post

- sentence motion and direct appeal

. ( d ) PCRA counsel were ineffective in ignoring the above errors and by withdrawing from the case without fully stating the reasons why Willits’ claims lacked merit in their Turner / Finley letters

.J

- S21045

- 23

- 7

-

Although we may quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant’s brief does not substantially conform to our procedural rules, we will nevertheless attempt
to discern Willits’ claims and give the reasons why no relief is due.
II. When reviewing an order denying a PCRA petition, the standard of review is “whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are free from legal error.” Commonwea lth v. Ligons , 601 Pa. 103 (Pa. 2009). The reviewing court is bound by the lower court’s credibility determinations. Id

. When a petitioner alleges a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must be established that counsel’s act or omission “so und ermined the truth

determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” 42 Pa. C.S. §9543(a)(2)(ii). Counsel is presumed to have been effective. See Commonwealth v. Cooper , 941 A.2d 655, 664 (Pa. 2007). This p resumption may only be overcome if the petitioner can plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) that t he underlying substantive claim has arguable merit; (2) t hat counsel had no reasonable basis for the disputed conduct; and (3) tha t th e petitioner was prejudiced by the alleged ineffectiveness. To establish the prejudice prong , the petitioner must show that there is “ a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s action or inaction, the outcome of the proceeding would have been dif ferent.” Id

. If the petitioner fails to meet any prong, the case may be dismissed withoutJ

- S21045

- 23

- 8

-

determining whether the remaining prongs are met. See Commonwealth v. Natividad , 938 A.2d 310, 322 (Pa. 2007 )

. Following the dismissal of a PCRA petition, a petitioner may “raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal. ” Commonwealth v. Bradley , 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021). Counsel is not deemed “ineffective in failing to assert a baseless claim, it is only w hen the claim, which has been forgone, is of arguable merit that inquiry must be made into basis for counsel’s decision not to pursue the matter.” Commonwealth v. Hubbard , 472 Pa. 259 (Pa. 1977). Moreover, a petitioner is not eligible for relief as to cla ims that ha ve been previously litigated or waived. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543 (a) (3). An issue is deemed finally litigated for purposes of the PCRA if the “highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544 (a)(2). An allegation is deemed waived “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, [or] on appeal [

. ] ” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544 (b). Here, all of Willits’ claims are waived and meritless. The errors Willits attributes directly to the sentencing court are not cognizable grounds for relief under the PCRA ; such claims were also waived because they could have been raised on direct appeal

. See Commonwe alth v. Spotz , 19 A.3d 244, 270 (Pa. 2011) (“Appellant’s claim of trial court error . . . is both waived and notJ

- S21045

- 23

- 9

-

cognizable under the PCRA because it could have been raised on direct appeal.”). 3 The purported ineffectiveness claims a s to the sentencing co unsel were likewise waived and without merit. Counsel filed a 1925(b) statement of
issues and timely commenced a direct appeal on Willits’ behalf. This gave Willits the opportunity to raise his present claims regarding the asserted violations of privacy, sentencing errors, the voluntariness of the plea and issues concerning discretionary aspects of his sentence. Since these issues could have been raised on direct appeal, they are not cognizable claims for relief under the PCRA, and the PCRA court did not err in making that determination. The record, in particular the transcript of the plea hearing, also refutes Willits’ claims that counsel was ineffective at the plea and sentencing stages of his case . During the plea colloquy, Willits stated under oath that counsel had been effective, that he understood he would be giving up rights as a result of entering a plea, and that he understood t he nature of the offenses he was

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We also note that Willits’ claim concerning the sentencing court ’s use of a mental health evaluation is well outside the ambit of the PCRA. Much of t he asserted prejudice of th e purported error seems to be that it violated Willits’ privacy rights. In addition to being a claim that could have been raised on direct appeal, Willit s is not eligible for relief under the PCRA because it was not shown, much less alleged, that the evaluation had any effect on the outcome of the proceedings. See Commonwealth v. Cooper , 941 A.2d 655, 664 (Pa. 2007). In fact, one of Willits’ claims is that the sentencing court erred in not utilizing the examination to determine that he needs mental health treatment.J

- S21045

- 23

- 10

-

pleading guilty to. A PCRA pet itioner is bound by sworn statements and cannot assert grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea which contradict them. See Commonwealth v. Willis , 68 A.3d 997, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2013). Next, Willits’ claims of ineffective PCRA counsel are without merit

. The reasons why are given in counsels’ respective Turner / Finley no - merit letters ,
as well as the PCRA court ’s written opinions

. Rather than reiterat e the content of those filings , all of which are already included in the record , we adopt their rationale here

. Finally, to the extent that we have not addressed a specific ground that Willits has attempted to raise, we find that any such issue is waived

. Pro se status confers no special benefit upon a PCRA petitioner, and where non

compliance with the rules impedes meaningful judicial review, the appeal may be dismissed

. See Commonwealth v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245, 252 (Pa. Super. 2003)

. Likewise, t his Court may decline to consider issues raised in a brief when the corresponding arguments are not sufficiently developed

. See Commonwealth v. Miller , 721 A.2d 1121 , 1124 (Pa. Super. 1998). Willits’ brief is missing several sections required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

. Se e Pa.R.A.P. 2101

. The brief is also disorganized and largely incoherent

. Thus, finding that Willits has failed to assert any meritorious issues in this appeal, the order on review must stand.J

- S21045

- 23

- 11

-

Order affirmed. Judge Nichols joins the memorandum. Judge Bowes concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 07/25/2023