J

- S60019

- 17

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ROSHA CHARLES WILLIAMS

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

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 45 WDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order December 6, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 25

- CR

- 0000749

- 2014

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2017 Appellant Rosha Charles Williams appeals from the December 6, 2016 Order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County denying without

a hearing his Petitio n filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546. We affirm. On May 4, 2016, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to possession of an offensive weapon. The court sentenced Appellant on July 15, 2016, to

a term of 111⁄2 to 23 months’ incarceration , followed by 2 years’ probation.

The court credited Appellant with 690 days and he was paroled the day of
sentencing. Counsel was granted leave to withdraw by O rder dated August
4, 2016. A ppellant did not file an appe al pro se . Instead, on August 16,
2016, he filed the instant PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed an
attorney , who filed a supplemental Petition on October 21, 2016, allegingJ

- S60019

- 17

- 2

-

that the trial court had improperly calculated Appellant’s prior record score

and his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance for failing to file an
appeal on this basis. On November 9, 2016, the court filed a Notice of

Intent to D ismiss the Petition pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. On December
6, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed the Petition. Appellant timely appealed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement

. Appellant raises the following question for our review:
Whether the PCRA Court committed legal error and abused its discretion in dismissing the De fendant’s Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief in that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to present the claim that the Defendant’s prior record score was incorrectly calculated, which should have taken the form of an appellate challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing as the use of an incorrect prior record score comprising a substantial question for purposes of appellate review?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.

We review the denial of PCRA relief to determine if the PCRA court's

findi ngs are supported by the record and without legal error.

Commonwealth v. Edmiston , 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013)

. We limit our scope of review to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record,
viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA court

level. Commonwealth v. Koehler , 36 A.3d 121, 131 ( Pa. 2012 ). However,

t h is Court is unable to review a claim that is inadequately developed

. See
Commonwealth v. Clayton , 816 A.2d 217, 221 (Pa. 2002) (OAJC) ( “ [ I ] t is

a well

- settled principle of appellate jurisprudence that u ndeveloped claimsJ

- S60019

- 17

- 3

-

are waived and unreviewable on appeal.” (citation omitted) ) ;
Commonwealth v. Williams , 732 A.2d 1167, 1175 (Pa. 1999) (recognizing
“unavailability of relief based upon undeveloped cl aims for which insufficient
arguments are presented on appeal”); Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (setting forth briefing
requirements).
Appellant utterly fails to develop his ineffectiveness claim. In his 2

- paragraph argument section, the sum and substance of his argument is the
following:
The employment of an incorrectly calculated prior record score does not implicate the legality of sentence so as to that provision of the PCRA statute. However, if a prior record score was employed a claim is constituted relatin g to ineffective assistance of counsel for failure of counsel to present that claim in the form of an appellate challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing as the use of an incorrect prior record score would state a substantial question for purpos es of appellate review.
Appellant’s Brief at 3

- 4

. Appellant has made no effort to provide citation to the record or to
legal authority to develop and support his ineffectiveness claim , as required
by our rules of appell ate procedure. Rather, he recites his criminal record
going back to 1995, and concludes that his prior record score was 2 not 4.

This bare and conclusory recitation does not provide a basis from which we
can provide meaningful appellate review. These substantial defects render

A ppellant’s claim waived.

Order affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Stevens joins the memorandum.J

- S60019

- 17

- 4

-

Judge Olson concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/30/2017