Opinion ID: 2325769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: PCRA Evidentiary Hearing

Text: In Appellant's ninth issue, he contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the substantial claims under the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution raised in his petition. Appellant's Brief at 83-84. Appellant cites Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 908(A), which provides that a judge shall order a hearing when a petition for post-conviction relief raises material issues of fact. However, Appellant does not apply the rule to his case and he does not specify within this vague and general claim a single material fact that in his view was raised by his petition and warrants a hearing. Our review of each of Appellant's claims, see text, supra, reveals that the PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's petition without a hearing. See Commonwealth v. Rush, 576 Pa. 3, 838 A.2d 651, 659-60 (2003) (holding that a PCRA court did not abuse its discretion in denying a petitioner's claim without a hearing when the merits of the claim could be adequately reviewed based upon the record and it [was] unclear what purpose an evidentiary hearing would have served). Appellant's non-specific assertions of PCRA court error for failure to hold a hearing do not entitle him to relief.