### J - S18035 - 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICO MANDRELL HERBER T Appellant No. 2974 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order August 22, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP - 45 - CR - 0001359 - 2012 BEFORE: PANELLA, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD, * 

### JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2017 Appellant, Rico Mandrell Herbert, appeals from the order entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denying his timely Post Conviction Relief Act 1 

### (“PCRA”) petition. Appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fil e a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We affirm. We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/31/16, at 1 - 3. On April 7, 2014, Appellant pled guilty to third - de gree murder, robbery of a motor vehicle, and abuse of a corpse. Appellant was immediately sentenced to twenty to forty years’ imprisonment for third - degree murder, ten to twenty years’ imprisonment

* 

### Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 

### 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546.

### J - S18035 - 17

- 2 -

for robbery of a motor vehicle, and one to two years’ imp risonment for abuse of a corpse, all sentences to run consecutively. Appellant filed a timely post - sentence motion, seeking reconsideration of his sentence and an adjustment in his time credit. The trial court granted the motion for a time credit but den ied the motion for reconsideration. Appellant filed a timely direct appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. This Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on February 12, 2015. Commonwealth v. Herbert , 1710 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Feb. 12, 2015) (unpublished memorandum). A petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not filed. On February 12, 2016, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. Thereafter, the PCRA court appointed PCRA counsel. The trial court conducted a hearing on June 28, 2016, wherein PCRA counsel indicated Appellant’s sole issue for PCRA review was his appellate counsel’s failure to file a petition for allowance of appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The PCRA court denied Appellant’s petition on August 22, 2016. Appellant filed a court - ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and the PCRA court filed a responsive opinion. Appellant raises the following issue for our review: Did the Court commit error by finding that [Appell ant’s] counsel was effective despite having failed to file a petition for allocatur with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania despite [Appellant’s] wish to exhaust his appellate rights? Appellant’s Brief at 3.

### J - S18035 - 17

- 3 -

Appellant argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after this Court declined to grant him relief on direct appeal. Appellant’s Brief at 7 - 10. Appellant specifically emphasizes that appellate counsel revea led, during his hearing testimony, that counsel could not recall whether Appellant had requested an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania but that Appellant probably wanted an appeal. Id. at 9. Therefore, Appellant contends that his appellate coun sel was ineffective for failing to file such appeal and his appellate rights should be reinstated. Id. at 10. We conclude that no relief is due. We begin by noting our standard of review [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. Charleston , 94 A.3d 1012, 1019 (Pa. Super.), appeal denied , 104 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). As to claims of ineffectiveness, it is well settled that: [c]ounsel is p resumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him. In Pennsylvania, we have refined the Strickland [ v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] p erformance and prejudice test into a three - part inquiry. Thus, to prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable

### J - S18035 - 17

- 4 - merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petition er suffered actual prejudice as a result. If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his claim fails. Id. (some citations omitted). Critically, we note that this Court has held that where an appellant raises only discretionary sentencing i ssues on appeal, and this Court has affirmed the appellant’s sentence, “counsel is not per se ineffective in not seeking a discretionary appeal.” Commonwealth v. Rigg , 84 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014). Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is genera lly statutorily precluded from reviewing this Court’s affirmance of a discretionary sentencing challenge absent additional factors. Id. at 1089; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(f). Such additional factors may include “whether this Court properly applied the correct st andard of review, accurately interpreted governing precedent or statutory law, or erred in its legal conclusion that a claim does not present a substantial question for review.” Id. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well - reasoned opinion of the Honorable Margherita Patti - Worthington, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The PCRA court’s opinion comprehensively dis cusses and properly disposes of the argument presented. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3 - 9 (finding that Appellant failed to establish that his appellate counsel’s failure to file a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court caused Appellant to suffer prejudice where Appellant’s sole issue on appeal concerned the discretionary

### J - S18035 - 17

- 5 -

aspects of his sentence and Appellant failed to establish the issues on which he would seek allowance of appeal were non - frivolous). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/17/2017, · " t' ' \v ·

- . - 1 - I D e fend ant originally fil e d a pro s e PCRA Petition wh e rein he alle ge d s ev e ral a cts o f ineff ec tiv e as s i s tance of trial and appellate c oun se l. W e appointe d th e Monroe C ounty Public D e fender ' s Office t o r e pr ese nt Defendant and g r anted l e av e for appointed cou ns el t o file an Amend e d P C RA P e tition . R ath e r th an filing an A mended Peti tion, c ouns e l inst e ad indicat ed at th e hearing that the only i s s u e D e f e ndant would be pursin g w a s th e failure of hi s app e ll ate coun s el to file a petiti o n for alloc atur with the P e nn s ylvania Supreme Court. T hi s de c ision w a s reinforc e d in the parti e s ' bri e f

s and s o we will not a ddre s s D e fend ant's other prose i s sues . 2 ! 8 Pa. C. S.A § 25 0 I ( a). body in the trunk, to a gi rlfriend's h o us e and then to a motel. After spending the night with a in th e trunk of Mr, DeVivo ' s v e hicle and left. D e fendant drove Mr . DeVivo's vehicl e, with hi s DeVivos t-shirt over his h e ad, whi c h smothered and killed him . Defendant then pl a c e d the 

### body DeVivo b egan yelling at Defendant and Defendant , in an e ffo rt to qui e t Mr. D e Viv o , pulled Mr. Defendant' s pre s e n ce startl e d Mr. De Vivo , who was g e ttin g r e ady for b e d at th e time . Mr. Febru ary 23, 2012 : De f end ant entered Mr. DeVivos home with the inte n t to take items of v a lue . including Criminal Homicide , 2 related to the robbery and death o f Joseph De Vivo , Sr. On On A pril 17 , 201 2 , D e fendant w a s charged by Criminal Complaint with v arious charg e s , a s follow s : al l o c atur with th e Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 1 \Ve s umm arize the fact s and procedural hi s tory claims hi s appellat e counsel provid e d in eff ective assi s t ance for failing to file a petition for fo r relie f under the Post-Convicti o n Relief Act , 42 Pa . C .S . A. § § 9541-95 4 6 , in which Defendant Thi s matter c omes before th e Court on Ri c o Mandrell Herbert' s ( " Defend ant") Petition OPINION POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ACT PETITION RICO rvI A NDRELL HERBERT,

Defendant v. No. 1359 CR 2 012 C OMlVfON\VEA L T H OF PENN S YLVANIA

C OUR T O F COMM O NP L E A SO F MONROECO U N 1~

FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DI S T R ICT CO l '\'HvfON\V E ALTH OF PENN S YLVA N I A Circulated 05/05 /2017 05 : 16 PM

~ · · r2 On May 17, 2012, the Commonwealth filed a Notice to Seek Death Penalty, alleging the aggravating circumstance that the homicide was committed during the commission of a felony. On, April 7, 2014, the day of jury selection, Defendant pled guilty to Third-Degree Murder, Robbery of a Motor Vehicle, and Abuse of a Corpse. Defendant was immediately sentenced to an aggregate term of 31 to 62 years: 20 to 40 years for Third-Degree Murder, 10 to 20 years for Robbery of a Motor Vehicle, and 1 to 2 years for Abuse of a Corpse, all to run consecutively. Defendant was represented during this time by Attorneys Thomas Sundmaker and John Waldron. On April 16, 2014, Defendant, through counsel, filed post-sentence motions seeking a reconsideration of his sentence and an adjustment in his time credit. This Co mt granted Defendant's motion for time credit but denied his motion for reconsideration of sentence. On May 23, 2014, Defendant, through Attorney Sundrnaker, filed an appeal to the Superior Court. The only issue raised on appeal was "[wjhether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing [Defendant] outside the Guidelines, when such sentences were the maximum allowable under the statute without considering relevant sentencing factors and without stating adequate reasons for its sentence." Commonwealth v. Herbert, 2015 \VL 7587816 at *4 (Pa. Super. February 12 , 20 l 5)(unreported) . On February 15, 2015 , the Superior Court affirmed this Court ' s sentence. 

### Id. at *I. Neither Defendant nor Attorney Sundmaker filed a petition for allocatur with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. different girlfriend at the motel. Defendant drove to South Carolina where he dumped Mr. DeVivos body in a swampy ravine, mere miles from Defendant's mother's home. Defendant was eventually apprehended in North Carolina and transported back to Pennsylvania , where he fabricated various stories about what happened and why he was in possession of Mr. De Vivo' s vehicle. Herbert, 1359 CR 2 012

### 3 D ef e n d an t' s s o l e i s s ue fo r o ur con s id e ration i s whe the r A tto rn e y Su nd m ake r w as in e ff e cti v e fo r failin g t o fil e a p e titi o n fo r all o c atur wi th th e P en n sy l v an i a S u p re m e C ou rt . Def. ' s Br. , p. 2. In his brief

, D ef endan t ar g u e s th at his s e n t e nc e was an ill egal s e nt en c e and th at b y n ot fili n g a p e ti ti o n fo r all o catur , A tt orney S u n dm ake r provide d i n e ffec ti ve a ss i s t an c e . De f. ' s Br. , p . 3. Furth er , D e fen d ant ave r s th at A ttorn ey S un d m ak e r ad mi tted at th e P C RA heari n g th at h e d i d
n o t c o nsult with De f

e n dant ab o ut his o pti o n s foll o win g th e S u p e ri o r C am i ' s a ffi rm anc e o f hi s j u d gm e n t o f s en t e n c e . De f. 's B r ., p. 4 . U lti m at e l y , De fe nd an t se ek s th e r ei n stat e men t o f hi s ap pell ate ri g ht s , 

### nu nc p ro tune . D e f. ' s Br ., p . 4 . The Co mm o nw e a lth re s pond s that b ec au s e Def e nd an t' s s o l e i s s u e o n ap peal ch all e n g e d th e d is c r e ti onary a sp e c t s o f hi s s en t e n c e , A tt o rn ey S un d m ake r d i d no t p rov i d e i neffe c ti v e a s s ist anc e wh e n he fail e d t o fil e a p etition for all o c atur. C o m. ' s B r . , p. 4 . Th e C o mm o n w e al th
r el ie s o n 

### Comm o nw e alt

h v. Ri g g , 8 4 A. 3d I 0 8 0 ( Pa. Sup er. 2 014 ), to s up p o rts i t s ar g um e nt. C o m . ' s Br . . p . 4 . Th e C o mm o n w eal th ave r s th at th e o n l y i ss u e D e f e n d an t rai s ed o n d i r ec t appe al to the S u p eri o r C ourt , and thu s th e on ly i s s u e he could h av e rai s ed t o th e Su pre m e C o u rt , c on c e rn ed th e di s cr e ti on ary a sp ec t s o f hi s sen ten c e - an i s su e w h i c h w i ll no t be r ev i e w e d b y th e 11 5 7 , 11 6 1 (P a. 200 3 ). Pr e limin aril y , w e find that Def e nd ant 's P e titi o n ba s b e en ti me l y fi l e d and m ee t s the
re lev an t c ri t e ria fo r fi l i ng a PC RA Pe ti ti on . 

### Se e 42 Pa . C. S. A. § § 9 534(a), 954 5 ( b ) (l ) . A cco rdin g l y , w e ha ve juri s d i c ti o n t o h ear th e m e rit s . 

### S ee Co mmon wea lth v . 

### Ro b inson , 83 7 A . 2d 

### D I S C U S S IO N D efendant fil e d the p r e se nt P C R A o n Feb ru ary 12, 2 0 1 6 . \\le app o inted c o un s el and h e l d
a h e ari n g o n s aid Pe titi o n on Ju n e 2 8 , 2 01 6. Aft e r re v i e w o f th e r e c o rd and th e t e s ti mo n y fr o m the h earin g , w e ar e re a dy t o di s p o se o f thi s m att e r. H e rb e rt . 1 3 5 9 C R 20 1 2

### 4 P e n n sy l vani a S u p re m e C o urt. 

### C om . ls Br . . pp. 4 -6 ( c iti n g 4 2 P a . C .S . A . 

### § 9 781 ( f j) . M o re o ve r , th e C o mm o nwe a lth not es that A tt o rn ey Sundmake r t esti fi ed credib l y at th e he ari n g th at he
c onsu l te d wi th D e f

e n dan t abo u t th e Superio r C o u rt' s dec is i o n an d wh at hi s opti o n s w e r e . C o m .' s Br . , p . 6 n.4 . A d e fe nd an t ha s th e burden of pro o f fo r P C RA cl ai m s b y a p r e p o n deranc e o f th e ev id e n ce. 

### Se e 4 2 P a'. C. S .A . 

### § 9 54 3 (a ) . D e fendant's issue h e r e i n r ai se s i n e ff ec ti ve n es s o f
ap pe ll at e c ou n s el. I n o r de r t o pro v e i n e ff e c ti v e a s s i s t an ce of c o u n s e l , De f e n d an t ' s cl ai m mu s t pa s s all three prong s of the 

### P i erce test: ( 1) th e underl y in g i s s u e mu s t b e o f ar g u ab l e me ri t; ( 2 )
c o u n s e l 's act o r o mi s si o n mus t n ot h a v e h a d a r e as onab le b a s i s in e ffe ctu atin g D e fe nd an t ' s i n t e re s ts ; an d (3) co u ns e l' s in e ff ecti v e ne s s mu s t h a ve w o rke d t o D e f e n d an t ' s p r ej u d i c e . 

### Co mm o nwealth v . P ierc e , 6 45 A. 2d 1 8 9, 194

- 95 (P a . 1 9 9 4 ) (c i tati o n o mi tte d). " A failu re t o s ati s f y an y o n e p ro ng o f th e t es t fo r in e ff e c ti ve n es s wil l r e s ult i n th i s Co urt's r ej e c ti o n of th e cl aim ." 

### Co 111111011 we al t

h v . B ish o p , 9 3 6 A. 2 d 1 1 36 , 113 9 (P a . S up er . 200 7 ) (ci t ati o n o mi tt ed) . Th e third pron g of th e 

### Pi e rc e t e s t - pr ej udice

- i s p roven i f th e D e fe n d ant s h o w s " th at b ut fo r th e a c t
o r o mi ss i o n in q ues ti o n , th e o ut co m e o f th e pro c e e ding s wo u l d have b e e n d i ff e r e n t. " 

### I d. ( quot ati o n omitt e d) . S i mi l arly , 

### " [ i ]fa r e a s on able ba s i s ex i s t s fo r th e p arti c ul ar c o ur s e ch ose n b y c o un s e l , the inq u iry e nd s and co un s el ' s p e rfo rm anc e i s d e e me d c o n s ti tuti o n all y e ffe c ti ve . " 

### Com m o n w ea lth v. Ab dul

- Sa la am, 808 A. 2 d 55 8 , 56 1 (P a . 2 00 l ) ( ci t ati o n o mi tt e d ) . G e n erall y , a d e fe nd ant ha s a ri g h t to e ffe c ti ve c o un se l thro u g h o ut hi s d ir e c t ap p e al. 

### Se e P a. R. C ri m .Pro . 1 22 ( 8) ( 2 ) ; 

### Comm o nw e alt h v. 

### Li e b e l

, 8 2 5 A . 2d 63 0 , 63 3 ( Pa. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci ting 

### Co m mon w ea l th r. 

### D a n i e ls , 4 2 0 A.2 d 13 2 3 (P a. 1 9 80) ) . Whi l e ap p e al t o th e S upr e m e C o u rt i s a m atter of

judicial di s c r e tion an d n o t a matte r o f ri g ht , 

### se e Pa . R AP . l 1 1 4 (a), a d e f e ndan t can e st abli s h pr eju d ice fo r fai l ure to fil e all o catur i n c ertain c ir c um s t an ce s . A ft e r the S u p eri o r C o urt H e rb e rt. l3 5 9 CR 20 1 25 rende r s a d e c i s ion, a d e f e n dan t ha s a ri g ht l o e ffe c ti v e c on su lt a ti o n reg ar di n g th e fi l i n g o f a p e titi on fo r all o catur wi th th e P e nn sy l vani a Su pr e m e Court and fai lure t o r e ce i ve s ai d
c onsultati o n wou l d r e sult in pr e j u dice. Se e Co mm o n w e a lth v . Ga d s de n, 8 3 2 A.2 d 10 8 2, l 08 8 ( P a. S u per. 2003). Addi ti o n all y , if a d e fe nd ant r equ e s ts a p e ti ti o n for al l oc atu r t o 

### be file d o n h i s b e hal f , h e h a s a ri g h t to e ff

e c tive r e pr es e n t ati o n o n that pe ti ti o n and i t i s 

### p e r se i n e ff e c ti ve a ss is t anc e for coun se l t o fai l to fil e that p e ti ti o n . S ee Comm o nw e alth v . R e e d, 971 A.2d 12 1 6, 12 25 (P a . 2 0 09). If th e r e co r d i s d evo i d of a de f endan t ' s r e que s t fo r allocatur , he m ay s till h av e a c og ni z abl e P C RA claim if he prov e s any i s su es h e so u g h t t o t ake t o th e Sup r e m e C o u rt "ro s e 'ab o v e frivo l i ty . " ' Commonw e alth v. Ri g g , 8 4 A.3 d 108 0 , 1 0 88 (P a . Sup e r. 2 0 14 )( q uo ting Con nn o n we a l t

h v. Ba th, 9 07 A . 2d 6 1 9 , 6 2 4 (Pa . S up e r. 200 6) ) ; s e e a lso Gad s d e n , 8 3 2 A .2d at l 08 5

- 8 6 (c i ti n g Comm on w e alt h v. L i e b el

, 825 A . 2d 630 ( P a . 200 3 ) ) . "( B ] e c au se th e P e n n s y l vania Su p r e m e C o u rt is ge n e rall y s t atut o rily pr e cl u d ed fro m rev ie w in g a d e f

en d ant' s di s c r e ti on ary s ente n c i n g claim , " s e e 42 P a . C.S . A. § 9781 ( £) , th e Sup e rio r C o u rt h as h e ld th at "co un s e l [is ] no t 

### per se i n e ff ecti v e i n no t s eekin g a d is c reti o n ary appe al aft e r [ the Sup e ri o r Co urt ] affirme d (a] s enten c e w h er e that wa s th e l one i ss u e ... t o be
r e v ie we d . " R igg , 8 4 A. 3 d at l 08 8 . T h e re ar e ti m es w h e re th e Su pr e m e C o urt w i l l gr ant a lloc atur on di sc r e tion ary issu e s o f se n ten cing. S ee id at l 0 8 8

- 8 9 . How e v e r, w h er e a def e n d an t rai se s on l y di sc r e ti o n ary se n t e nc i ng i ss u e s on appe al and the S up eri o r C o urt affirm s th e tri a l co u rt ' s se nten c e , th e S u p rem e Co urt wi ll n o t g rant all ocatu r. S ee id I ndeed , 

### "§ 978 1 ( f) wou l d b e r e n der e d me an i n g l e s s i f th e Hi g h C ourt c o u ld r ev i ew [th e Sup e rior C o urt' s ] af firrn ance o f a di sc re ti o n ary s e n te n c in g c h all eng e absen t . .. a d d iti o n al fa ct or s . " Id. at 1089. In R i gg . th e S up e ri o r Co urt n ote d th at " [ Rig g ' s] ar g um e nt h e re i n cen t e rs around w h e th er hi s s enten c e was e x c e s s ive an d wh e th e r the tri al court pla c e d a deq u at e r ea sons fo r it s s e n t e nc e H erb e rt. 1 3 5 9 C R 2 0 I 2

### 6 3 First, we note that part of the Superior Court's decision was that Defendant had waived his challenge to the sentence imposed on the Abuse of a Corpse charge. Herbert, 2015 WL 7587816 at *7 n.4. The Court also found that despite this waiver, Defendant ' s claim lacked merit nonetheless. Id at * 13 n.5. Second, we understand Defense counsel has characterized Defendant's appellate issues as challenging the legality of Defendant's sentence. Def. 's Br., p. 2-3. However, that was not the argument to the Superior Court on direct appeal. Herbert, 2015 WL 7587816 at *4. In his PCRA Petition, Defendant only seeks to have his appellate rights from the Superior Court's decision in February of 20 I 5 reinstated, m111c pro tune. See Def. 's Br., p. 4. Thus, we only consider the appellate issues raised therein. See Rigg, 84 A.3d at I 086-89 (showing the determination of ineffectiveness for failing to file allocatur stems from the issues raised before the Superior Court on direct appeal). Superior Court decision, he has shown prejudice. 

### See Gadsden, 832 A.2d at 1087. In the present First, if a defendant does not receive effective consultation about his options following a A defendant can show prejudice for counsel's failure to file allocatur in three situations. granted. we must now conduct a 

### Pierce analysis to determine whether Defendant's relief should be traditional 

### Pierce standards. Rigg, 84 A.3d at 1090 n.9. Thus, our inquiry does not end here and relief under 

### R;gg. Rigg, 84 A.3d at 1089. However, 

### Rigg does not foreclose PCRA relief under Commonwealth is correct in that Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to warrant to file allocatur under these circumstances does not constitute ineffectiveness 

### per se, the Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2cl 949 (Pa. Super. 2002)). As the Superior Court has held failure appeal challenged the discretionary aspects of this Court's sentence. 

### See id. at *5 (citing of a Motor Vehicle. 3 

### Herbert , 2015 \VL 7587816 at *4. Therefore, Defendant's sole issue on was whether this Court abused its discretion when we imposed a departure sentence for Robbery Defendant's requested relief. Com.'s Br., p. 5. The issue decided in Defendant's direct appeal The Commonwealth argues, inter aha, that 

### R;gg precludes this Court from granting merits of such a claim because Rigg had not raised it. 

### Id. claim of ineffectiveness. 

### Id. at I 090 n. 9. In a footnote, the Court stated it would not reach the file allocatur after consultation with Rigg, however, the Court did not decide a 

### P;erce-based on the record." Id The Court found that Rigg· s counsel was not per se ineffective for failing to Herbert. 1359 CR 20127 4 At th e h e arin g, Attorney Sund m ake r al so te s tifi e d th at as appo i n te d c o un s e l , he w o ul d be un able to fil e for all ocatur o n D e f

e nd ant' s be h alf with o ut fir s t pe titi o ni n g th is Co u rt. W e ar e un a w are o f any ru le o r c a se that di c t at es ap point ed cou n s e l c ann o t tile for al l o catur on b e h al f o n an i ndi g ent d e fend ant w i th o u t fir s t peti tion i n g the Co u rt o f Co mm o n P l ea s. In fa c t , as w e h ave s tated ab ove , the l a w i ndi cate s, with o ut di s ti n ctio n , th at a de f e n se att orn ey' s fail ur e t o file a re qu e s t e d p e ti tion fo r all ocato r i s pe r s e i neff ec tiv e a s s i s tan c e . R e ed

, 97 I A. 2 d at 1 2 25 . Mo r eo ver , P e nn s y lv ani a Rule s o f Cri minal Pr oc edure man date th at " th e appo i n tment [ o f c o un s e l ) s h all b e e ffectiv e un til fin al jud g m e nt , in c l udi n g a ny pro ce e di n gs u p o n di re c t a

pp eal." P a . R. C rim . Pro . 1 22( 8 )( 2 ) ( e mp has i s a dd e d ) . H o w ev er , De fe n d ant h a s n o t rai s e d thi s as an iss u e i n hi s bri ef and as w e fi n d De fend ant w ou ld n ot be entitle d t o re li ef regar dl es s. w e n ee d n o t el ab orat e on thi s i s su e . 

### un d er th e R ee d 

### st andar d. pre pon de ran ce o f the ev ide n c e for all P C RA cl aim s) . Thu s, D efe nd an t h as not s h o wn p rejudice al l o catur. See 

### 42 P a . C.S . A . § 9 54 3 ( a ) (s t atin g a d efe n d ant h a s th e burden o f p roo f b y a t es ti m o ny d oes n o t am o un t t o pro of by a p re p o n d e rance that D e fend an t re queste d a pe ti ti o n fo r p e ti ti on for alloc atur, but he b e l ie ve d D efe nd ant w o uld h ave w an t ed o n e file d. We find that s uch Sun d m aker t es ti fi e d th at he did n ot s pecificall y rem e mber wh e ther D e fend ant re que s t e d a s uch a re qu e s t , th e n th e attorn e y who fail e d to file fo r all o catur i s p e r se in e ffe cti v e . Id. Att o rn e y Co m m o nwe a lth 

### v. L ieb e l, 

### 825 A.2 d 630 (P a . 2 003 )). If th e r ec o rd sh o ws th e de fen d ant m ade ev iden ce sh o win g the d efe nd ant r e que s t e d a p e ti ti on be fi l e d . See R e e d , 

### 9 71 A .2d at 1 2 2 5 ( c itin g T h e se con d way a d efe nd ant can s ho w p r eju d ic e fo r fai lure t o fil e alloc atur i s i f th e r e is th e G ad s de n 

### s tand ar d . di s cu s s the a v ail ab l e o p ti o n s with D e f e nd ant . " T hu s, De fe nd ant ha s n o t s h o wn p re judic e und e r p erso n , ove r the p h o n e, or b y l e tt e r , we h ave n o r e a s o n t o d o ubt th at A ttorn e y S undm aker did de ci s i o n. Whil e A tt o rn ey Sundmaker.wa s un s ure w h e th e r he co mmunic ate d th es e opti o n s i n t es tim o n y is that h e di d 

### s p eak w i th De fe n d ant ab out hi s option s foll o w i n g the S u p e ri o r C ou rt d e ni e d hi s ap p e al . " D ef,' s Br . , p. 4 . Ho we ve r , o ur r ec o ll e c ti on o f A tto rn ey S undmak e r 's PCRA h earin g th at he did n o t c on s ult w ith [ D e fe nd an t] ab o ut hi s o p ti o n s afte r th e Su p e ri o r C ourt Co urt ' s d ec i s i on . W e r ecog n i z e th at D efe nd ant ave r s A tt o rn e y Sundrn ake r " a dmitte d at th e ca se , Atto rn e y S und make r cr edibl y t es tifi e d th at h e c on s u lte d with D efe n dan t after th e S u pe rior H erbe rt. 1 3 59 CR 2 0 1 28 G e ne rall y, th e P e nn s yl v ania Supr e m e C o urt may n o t grant all oc atu r when th e o n l y i s s u es o n ap peal c h all e n g e th e di sc reti o n ary as p e c t s of se nten c ing. 4 2 P a . C . S. A. § 9 78 1 (f). H owe v e r , th e Su p r e m e C o u rt h a s gran te d al loc atur to th es e ty pe s of i ss u es wh e n o th e r fa c t o r s are p r e se nt. F o r examp l e , wh e n th e 

### Co111111 0 11 we alth ap p e al s d i s c reti o n ary as p ec t s o f se nten c in g , th e S u p r em e C o urt h a s gr anted al lo catu r. 

### Ri g g, 84 A. 3d at 1088 ( c i ti n g 

### Commonw e a l th v . Perry, 32 A. 3 d 2 32 (P a. 201 1 )) . Si mi l arly, wher e the Supe ri o r C o urt h a s rev er s e d a d i s c r e tion ary s e nte n ce fo r b e ing t oo l e ni e nt , the Suprem e Court will all ow an ap p e al. 

### Id. at 1088

- 89 ( c i tin g 

### Co mmonw e a l th v. Smi th, 6 7 3 A. 2 d 8 9 3 (P a . 1 9 96 )) . M o s t r e levant to th e p r e s e nt c a s e , w h e r e th e Sup eri o r Court finds a defendan t h as fail e d t o e s t ab l ish a s ub s t anti al q u e s tio n which w o uld all o w app e al of th e di s c r eti o nary a sp ec t s of his se n ten ce , th e S u pr e m e C o urt has gran t ed all o catur t o r evi e w wheth er th e Su p e ri or C o urt ap pl i e d th e co rr ec t l e gal pri nc i pal s i n r e n d e ri n g th at d e c is i on. 

### Id. at 10 8 9 ( c itin g 

### Co m m o nw e a lth v . Mo uzo n , 8 1 2 A.2d 6 17 (P a . 200 2 )) . Th e Su p e ri o r Court h a s reco g nized that und e r thi s s t andar d , w h e r e th e Su p e ri o r C o urt h a s rul e d a s e nt en c i n g i ss u e was w aiv e d , th e S up r eme C o urt w o uld al s o l ik e l y g ran t all ocatur. 

### I d ("Simi larl y , a d ec is i o n by [the Supe ri o r ] Co u rt fi n d i n g that a di s c r e ti o n ary s e n t e n cin g c l aim was w aive d o r w a s n o t w ai ve d w o u l d 

### be

r e v i ew able . " ). In D e f e nd an t' s cas e , th e S u p e ri o r Court fo un d th at Def e ndant had pre se n t e d a su b s tanti al qu es ti o n th at warran ted r ev i ew of th e di sc r e ti o n ary a s pe c t s of thi s Co u1 1 ' s s e n t e n c e fo r R o b be ry o f a M o t o r V e hicl e . 

### H

e r b e rt , 2 01 5 WL 75 8 7 81 6 at * 7 . D e f e nd an t' s app e ll ate i ss u e fo r the Ro bb e ry sen t e nc e i s s tri c tly a d i s c r e tio n ary s e nten c ing i ss ue and i s n ot an i s s u e fo r w hich th e F i n all y. a d efe n dan t can s h ow p r e jud i ce ev e n w h e r e th e r e is n o e v id e n ce h e r eq u e s t e d a pe titi o n for all ocatur s o l o n g a s th e i s s u es he s e e k s t o app e al wo uld " [ ri s e] ' above f ri v o l i ty ." : 

### R ig g , 8 4 A.3 d al 1 08 8 (quotin g 

### Co mm on w e alt h v. B a th, 9 07 A. 2d 6 1 9 , 6 2 4 ( P a . S up e r. 2 0 06 )) . H e rb e rt. 1 3 59 C R 2 0 1 2

### 9 S up r e me C ourt wo u l d g ran t 

### al lo catu r, Id. at ,: , 5 ; s e e a ls o 42 P a. C .S. A. ~ 9 7 8l( f) . Addi ti o nally, th e S up e ri or C ourt al s o fo und th at D e fend an t had w ai v ed h i s appe ll ate i ss u e o n the se nt e n c e he
r e ceiv e d fo r Ab u s e o f a Co rp s e . Her b e rt , 2 0 1 5 WL 7 5 878 1 6 at ,:, 7 _ Ac cordi n g to 

### R; gg , the S upr e me C ourt mi g ht g ran t a ll oc atur o n th e i s s u e of w h e th e r D ef e n dant wai v e d th e claim
r eg arding h i s s e n t e nc e for Abus e of a Corps e . R igg, 84 A.3d at l 0 8 9 . Howev e r , as the S uperi or C o urt al so found th i s claim wo ul d fail o n th e me rit s , H e rbert , 2015 \V L 7 5 878 1 6 at 

## * 1 3 n .5, D e f e ndant ha s n ot s h o wn h i s app e ll at e i ss ue s would ris e ab ove fri v olity . Se e Com m o nw e a l th v . B a th, 9 0 7 A.2d 61 9, 6 23

- 2 4 (P a. S up e r. 20 0 6 ). Thu s , D ef endan t ha s fai l e d t o m e e t the pr e judic e p rong o f the P i e rc e t es t and h i s P e ti tio n must be deni e d. B ish o p , 9 3 6 A.2d at 1 1 3 9 . A c cor d in g ly , we e n t er th e fo l l o wi n g Ord e r: H e rbert. 1 3 5 9 C R 20 1 2