J-S83015-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARSEILLE WILSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1693 EDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 9, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0013135-2011

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 02, 2018

Appellant Marseille Wilson appeals from the Order denying his 

Petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa. C.S. 

§§ 9541-9546. He challenges the effectiveness of counsel and the legality of 

his sentence. After careful review, we adopt as our own the Opinion of the 

PCRA court filed June 28, 2017, and affirm.

On March 1, 2013, a jury found Appellant guilty of rape, sexual assault 

and indecent assault in connection with his rape of an unconscious woman. 

The court sentenced him on July 11, 2013, to 5 to 10 years’ incarceration on 

the rape conviction, followed by 10 years’ probation.1 This Court affirmed 

____________________________________________

1 The sexual assault conviction merged for purposes of sentencing with the 

rape conviction. The court imposed no further sentence on the indecent 

assault convictions. 
J-S83015-17

- 2 -

the Judgment of Sentence on September 15, 2015. Appellant filed no 

further appeals.

On October 17, 2016, Appellant timely filed2the instant PCRA petition 

pro se, which he amended after the appointment of counsel, challenging the 

legality of his sentence based on Alleyne,

3 and alleging ineffective 

assistance of counsel for failing to raise the issue at trial or on appeal. See

Amended PCRA Petition, dated 11/21/16. Following the filing of a 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition as meritless 

on May 9, 2017.

On May 24, 2017, Appellant timely appealed. The court did not order

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. The PCRA Court filed a Rule 

1925(a) Opinion.

In a section of his Brief entitled “Summary of Questions Involved,” 

Appellant presents the following issue:

Should PCRA relief be granted where he was subject to an illegal 

sentence and where counsel failed to raise the issue at trial or on 

direct appeal?

Appellant’s Brief, at 8.

____________________________________________

2 Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, Appellant filed his PCRA Petition 

timely when he submitted it to prison officials for mailing on October 15, 

2017. See Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 

1998) (holding that the prisoner mailbox rule applies to PCRA petitions).

3 Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding any fact that 

increases the mandatory minimum sentence must be presented to the jury 

and found beyond a reasonable doubt).
J-S83015-17

- 3 -

We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the 

record supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its Order is otherwise 

free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 

2014). There is no right to a PCRA hearing; a hearing is unnecessary where 

the PCRA court can determine from the record that there are no genuine 

issues of material fact. Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. 

Super. 2008).

Without indicating the statute under which he was sentenced that he is 

challenging, and with absolutely no citation to the sentencing record, 

Appellant avers that he “was subject to an illegal mandatory minimum 

sentence ... [and[] counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue ... at 

trial or on direct appeal.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. Appellant supports this 

argument summary with a lengthy discussion of Alleyne and subsequent 

Pennsylvania case law, followed by a general discussion of the right to 

counsel and Strickland v. Washington4 and Commonwealth v. Pierce.

5

 

While Appellant’s failure to provide relevant facts in his Brief would generally 

render this Appeal waived, the Hon. Genece Brinkley of the Philadelphia 

Court of Common Pleas, who presided over both Appellant’s jury trial, 

sentencing and PCRA proceeding, has authored a well-written, thorough 

____________________________________________

4 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

5 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987).
J-S83015-17

- 4 -

Opinion with citation to relevant case law and the record, which we adopt as 

our own. See PCRA Ct. Op., dated June 28, 2017 (finding: (1) Appellant did 

not cite which mandatory minimum sentencing statute he believes was 

applied illegally; (2) nothing in the record indicates that the Court applied a 

mandatory minimum sentence; (3) the word “mandatory” was never used 

during the sentencing hearing by the court or either party; (4) quoting the 

court’s statement made during the sentencing hearing that “This, in essence, 

is a guideline sentence. It’s in the middle of the guidelines. It’s not above 

the guidelines;” and (5) because the underlying claim has no merit, 

Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.). 

Our review indicates that the record supports the PCRA court’s findings 

and its conclusion contains no legal error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial 

of PCRA relief. The parties are directed to annex a copy of the PCRA Court’s 

June 28, 2017 Opinion to any future filings.

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/2/18
Circulated 01/29/2018 04:18 PM