J-S35041-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROSS JARED SEGREAVES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2278 EDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered July 8, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001443-2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2020

I join the Majority Memorandum. I write separately to emphasize two 

points. First, although Appellant included in his amended PCRA petition in the 

above-captioned case the claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to file 

an appeal of his revocation sentence,1 and the PCRA court suggests that he 

may have pursued that claim,2it is clear from the notes of testimony that 

Appellant only challenged counsel’s failure to appeal the contempt sentence. 

In addition to the express limitation quoted in the Majority Memorandum,3the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See Amended PCRA Petition, 4/25/19, at ¶ 9(a).

2 See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/8/19, at 7 n.1. 

3 See Majority Memorandum at 4 (quoting N.T. PCRA Hearing, 5/30/19, at 

13). 
J-S35041-20

- 2 -

testimony elicited from counsel by both PCRA counsel and the Commonwealth 

related solely to the contempt sentence. For example, counsel testified that 

he became involved with Appellant when his office received an application for 

an appeal to the Superior Court on the PFA contempts. See N.T. PCRA 

Hearing, 5/30/19, at 7. Counsel acknowledged that Appellant repeatedly 

informed him of his desire to appeal his sentence to this Court, but he rejected 

Appellant’s demand, thinking it better to pursue a motion for reconsideration 

of sentence.4 Id. at 18-20. Following the reconsideration hearing, counsel 

advised Appellant to “file a PCRA against me if you think I did a bad job.” Id. 

at 21. Appellant testified that he agreed with counsel’s recitation of the facts. 

Id. at 30. The hearing on the motion for reconsideration of the contempt 

sentences was held immediately prior to the revocation hearing,5 and the 

record contains no comparable reconsideration motion filed in the instant 

case. Therefore, the record does not support a finding that Appellant pursued 

or proved a claim that counsel failed to file a requested direct appeal in the 

instant revocation case. 

Second, while the Majority correctly asserts that counsel’s blatant, per 

se ineffective assistance in the contempt case is not before us in the instant 

____________________________________________

4 The PCRA court aptly noted that counsel had the option of seeking 

reconsideration first and then filing the requested appeal when reconsideration 

was denied. See N.T. PCRA Hearing, 5/30/19, at 24. 

5 See N.T. Hearing, 1/18/19, at 2-5. 
J-S35041-20

- 3 -

appeal, I observe that the appealed-from order in this case does not include 

the docket number for the contempt case (CP-48-MD-197-2017), and the 

public docket for that case does not reflect entry of any order disposing of the 

PCRA claims therein. Accordingly, Appellant’s PCRA petition remains pending 

in the contempt case, and Appellant’s PCRA counsel should take steps to 

secure a final order disposing of the claim related to the contempt convictions. 

If the PCRA court enters an order denying relief rather than reinstating 

Appellant’s direct appeal rights, Appellant may then file an appeal from that 

order to obtain the relief to which he is entitled. 

Judge Bowes files a concurring memorandum in which both Judge 

Stabile and Judge Collins join.