J-A04030-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYRELL ARTIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2757 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 22, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0011178-2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYRELL ARTIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2758 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 22, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0005218-2013

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYRELL ARTIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2760 EDA 2022

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 22, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0006575-2013
J-A04030-24

- 2 -

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

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 20, 2024

Tyrell Artis appeals from the order dismissing his Post Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”) petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Artis argues that his 

trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. We affirm. 

In April 2015, Artis pleaded guilty to numerous crimes at three dockets. 

In all, he pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy (to commit robbery), 

possessing an instrument of crime, aggravated assault, and robbery, and two 

counts each of persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried 

without a license, and carrying firearms on public streets in Philadelphia.1

Artis’s crimes stem from a robbery of a home, resulting in one of the residents 

being shot in the foot by Artis’s codefendant. The court sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of 391⁄2 to 79 years’ incarceration. Artis filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which the court denied. See Order Denying Motion for 

Reconsideration of Sentence, filed 4/20/17. We affirmed the judgment of 

sentence. Commonwealth v. Artis, No. 1896 EDA 2017, 2019 WL 2304042, 

at *1 (Pa.Super. filed May 30, 2019).

Artis filed the instant PCRA petition on April 28, 2020. The court 

appointed counsel who filed an amended PCRA petition. See Amended Post 

Conviction Relief Act Petition, filed 5/8/21. Relevant to this appeal, Artis raised

a claim of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. See id. at 14. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 907, 2702, 3701, 6105, 6106, and 6108, respectively. 
J-A04030-24

- 3 -

He alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object during Artis’s oral 

guilty colloquy, “as not all of the requirements of an oral guilty plea colloquy 

were satisfied by the trial court[.]” Id. He claimed that appellate counsel was 

ineffective for failing to challenge his oral guilty plea colloquy on direct appeal. 

See id. The court issued notice of its intent to deny in part the PCRA petition

as to his ineffectiveness claims “[b]ecause the written colloquies adequately 

supplemented the oral colloquy[.]” Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 Notice, filed 4/25/22. 

The court ultimately granted relief on a sentencing-related claim not at issue 

in this appeal,2 and denied the petition as to the claim related to the oral 

colloquy. This timely appeal followed. 

Artis raises the following issue:

Whether the trial (PCRA) court erred, when it dismissed, in part, 

appellant Tyrell Artis’s amended PCRA petition as being without 

merit, as the claim raised has merit, as trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to object during appellant Tyrell Artis’s oral 

guilty plea colloquy, as not all of the requirements of an oral guilty 

plea colloquy were satisfied by the trial court and appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of an 

inadequate oral guilty plea colloquy on direct appeal?

Artis’s Br. at 4.

“When reviewing the denial of a PCRA petition, we must determine 

whether the PCRA court’s order is supported by the record and free of legal 

error.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 234 A.3d 735, 737 (Pa.Super. 2020)

(citation omitted). 

____________________________________________

2 The court later resentenced Artis, and he appealed. We dispose of those 

appeals in a separate memorandum. See Nos. 563, 564, and 565 EDA 2023.
J-A04030-24

- 4 -

Counsel is presumed effective. See Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 

A.3d 1238, 1244 (Pa.Super. 2011). To overcome this presumption, the 

petitioner must show that: “(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) 

counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the 

petitioner suffered actual prejudice as a result.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 

84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014). “[T]he inability of a petitioner to prove each 

prong . . . in respect to trial counsel’s purported ineffectiveness alone will be 

fatal to his layered ineffectiveness claim.” Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 

A.2d 1, 13 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted). “In the context of a plea, a claim of

ineffectiveness may provide relief only if the alleged ineffectiveness caused an 

involuntary or unknowing plea.” Commonwealth v. Thomas, 270 A.3d 

1221, 1226 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

A valid guilty plea is one that a defendant enters knowingly, intelligently, 

and voluntarily. Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517, 522 (Pa.Super. 

2003). Rule 590 provides that in accepting a guilty plea, the trial court “shall 

conduct a separate inquiry of the defendant on the record to determine 

whether the defendant understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of the 

plea agreement on which the guilty plea . . . is based.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B)(2).

At a minimum, the court should ask questions of the defendant that would 

elicit the following information: 

(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the 

charges to which he or she is pleading guilty or nolo 

contendere?

(2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?
J-A04030-24

- 5 -

(3) Does the defendant understand that he or she has the 

right to trial by jury?

(4) Does the defendant understand that he or she is 

presumed innocent until found guilty?

(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of 

sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?

(6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by 

the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge 

accepts such agreement?

(7) Does the defendant understand that the Commonwealth 

has a right to have a jury decide the degree of guilt if the 

defendant pleads guilty to murder generally?

Id. at comment. “[N]othing in the rule would preclude the use of a written 

colloquy that is read, completed, signed by the defendant, and made part of 

the record of the plea proceedings.” Id. (emphasis added); see

Commonwealth v. Harris, 589 A.2d 264, 265 (Pa.Super. 1991). In such 

cases, the written colloquy should be supplemented with some oral questions 

from the court. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 590, comment. “[A] plea of guilty will not 

be deemed invalid if the circumstances surrounding the entry of the plea 

disclose that the defendant had a full understanding of the nature and 

consequences of his plea and that he knowingly and voluntarily decided to 

enter the plea.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 783 (Pa.Super. 

2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fluharty, 632 A.2d 312, 315 (Pa.Super. 

1993)). 

Artis alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging his 

guilty plea. He also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

challenge his guilty plea on direct appeal. He maintains that his plea is faulty 
J-A04030-24

- 6 -

because it did not include “all of the requirements of an oral guilty plea 

colloquy[.]” Artis’s Br. at 14. Artis notes that the court did not ask the following 

questions consistent with Rule 590: 

(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the 

charges to which he or she is pleading guilty or nolo 

contendere?

(3) Does the defendant understand that he or she has the 

right to trial by jury?

(4) Does the defendant understand that he or she is 

presumed innocent until found guilty?

(5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of 

sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?

Id. at 23-24. Artis claims he would not have entered the plea if the court had 

asked these questions. Id. at 25. 

The PCRA court rejected this argument. It explained that “[b]ecause the 

oral plea colloquy was adequately supplemented by the written colloquy, 

[Artis’s] claims are without merit.” Rule 1925(a) Opinion, filed 12/20/22, at 

5. The court pointed out that before the oral colloquy, Artis signed three 

written colloquies, and “[a]ll of the four questions missing from the oral 

colloquy were directly addressed in each of the written colloquies.” Id. at 6. 

This decision is supported by the record and free of legal error. Artis 

does not mention that he completed and signed three written colloquy forms. 

See Written Guilty Plea Colloquies, dated 4/22/15. Each of Artis’s written 

colloquies covered the requisite matters that the court did not inquire about 

at the plea hearing. See Written Guilty Plea Colloquies at 1 (noting the nature 
J-A04030-24

- 7 -

of charges to which Artis pled guilty, his right to a jury trial, his presumption 

of innocence, and the range of sentences and fines for his charges). We note 

that Artis’s signature appears below the following statement, “I have read all 

of the above, or my lawyer read it to me. I understand it. My answers are all 

true and correct.” Id. at 3. Artis has not claimed that he did not sign the 

forms. The written colloquy forms were a sufficient basis for the trial court to 

conclude that Artis “had a full understanding of the nature and consequences 

of his plea and that he knowingly and voluntarily decided to enter the plea.” 

Reid, 117 A.3d at 783. 

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this meritless issue.

See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1222 (Pa. 2006) (“counsel 

will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim”). Since 

Artis’s claim against trial counsel is meritless, his ineffectiveness claim against 

appellate counsel also fails. Tedford, 960 A.2d at 13. We affirm the order 

denying in part his PCRA petition. 

Order affirmed. 

Date: 5/20/2024