Court Opinion

ID: 9374637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 17:08:21.572981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.120998
License: Public Domain

J-A19022-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    LARRY E. GARLICK                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 184 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 20, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-40-CR-0001028-2017

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                        FILED: FEBRUARY 23, 2023

        Appellant, Larry E. Garlick, appeals from the order entered in the

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition pursuant to

the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1          We affirm and grant counsel’s

petition to withdraw.

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with rape by forcible compulsion,

aggravated indecent assault (complainant less than 16 years old), indecent

assault of a person less than 16 years old, and statutory sexual assault, in

connection with the assault of a 15-year-old girl, who is the daughter of

Appellant’s prior paramour. On June 29, 2018, Appellant waived his right to

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-A19022-22

a jury trial and a bench trial commenced immediately thereafter. The victim

testified that in the middle of the night, she awoke to find Appellant on top of

her. The victim stated that she initially froze, and Appellant proceeded to

penetrate her vagina with his fingers and penis. Appellant also touched her

breasts with his hands and his mouth before the victim pushed Appellant off

of her. The victim went to her grandmother’s room shortly after, told her

about the assault, and they called the police. The Commonwealth presented

evidence that Appellant’s DNA matched the DNA swabs taken from the victim’s

breasts. A vaginal swab was also taken but no results were determined from

the test. Further, a pelvic exam was conducted on the victim and there was

no evidence of physical trauma in the region.

         At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found Appellant guilty

of all charges and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 132 to 264 months

of incarceration. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on October 4,

2019, and Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our

Supreme Court.         See Commonwealth v. Garlick, 1690 MDA 2018

(Pa.Super. Oct. 4, 2019) (unpublished memorandum). On November 3, 2020,

Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel, who filed

a supplemental PCRA petition alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to adequately advise Appellant regarding the Commonwealth’s plea

offer.

         The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing on September 9,

                                        -2-
J-A19022-22

2021. Appellant testified that trial counsel only met with Appellant in person

two or three times at the courthouse.        Appellant stated that he had no

opportunity to fully discuss the merits of his case with trial counsel because

he felt uncomfortable discussing the details of his case on the phone.

Appellant claimed trial counsel informed him that the Commonwealth offered

a plea deal but dismissed it saying, “we don’t want that.” Appellant insisted

that trial counsel bolstered Appellant’s confidence in taking his case to trial by

diminishing the importance of the DNA evidence, telling Appellant that the

victim’s statements were inconsistent, and leading Appellant to believe that

the results of the physical examination showing that the victim’s hymen was

intact would result in an acquittal. Appellant maintained that if trial counsel

had properly advised him of the weight of the evidence against him, Appellant

would have accepted the Commonwealth’s plea offer.

      Trial counsel testified that although he met with Appellant in person at

the courthouse only once, he had many conversations with Appellant over the

phone and by written correspondence. Trial counsel stated that he discussed

the entirety of the discovery with Appellant, including the fact that the victim’s

statements were largely consistent throughout the course of her interviews.

Trial counsel advised Appellant that the victim’s statements alone could be

sufficient to convict Appellant. Trial counsel further informed Appellant that

the medical report showing that the victim’s hymen was intact would not be

dispositive of Appellant’s guilt. Additionally, trial counsel informed Appellant

                                      -3-
J-A19022-22

that Appellant’s DNA was discovered on the victim’s breasts.

      Trial counsel testified that he had multiple conversations with the

Commonwealth’s attorney to discuss the charges against Appellant and secure

a plea offer. Trial counsel related the Commonwealth’s plea offer to Appellant

and strongly recommended that Appellant consider the offer based on “what

[trial counsel] believed the evidence would be at the time of trial [and] the

potential lengthy sentence that [Appellant] may face if he were to be

convicted.” (N.T. PCRA Hearing, 9/9/21, at 9). Trial counsel stated that he

communicated this recommendation to Appellant multiple times, and received

varying responses from Appellant.     Specifically, Appellant initially opposed

accepting any plea offer but eventually told trial counsel that Appellant was

only open to accepting a plea offer that guaranteed incarceration at a county

jail and no sex offender registration requirements. Trial counsel told Appellant

these were not terms that could be negotiated, and “prior to trial, it was

abundantly clear that [Appellant] would be proceeding to trial.” (Id. at 14).

      On January 18, 2022, the PCRA court denied PCRA relief. Appellant filed

a timely notice of appeal on January 27, 2022. The court did not order, and

Appellant did not file, a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

      As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel has filed a motion to

                                     -4-
J-A19022-22

withdraw in this Court and a Turner/Finley brief.2 Before counsel can be

permitted to withdraw from representing a petitioner under the PCRA,

Pennsylvania law requires counsel to file a “no-merit” brief or letter pursuant

to Turner and Finley.          Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940

(Pa.Super. 2003).

          [C]ounsel must…submit a “no-merit” letter to the [PCRA]
          court, or brief on appeal to this Court, detailing the nature
          and extent of counsel’s diligent review of the case, listing
          the issues which the petitioner wants to have reviewed,
          explaining why and how those issues lack merit, and
          requesting permission to withdraw.

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721 (Pa.Super. 2007). Counsel

must also send to the petitioner a copy of the “no-merit” letter or brief and

motion to withdraw and advise petitioner of his right to proceed pro se or with

privately retained counsel.           Id.      “Substantial compliance with these

requirements will satisfy the criteria.” Karanicolas, supra at 947.

       Instantly, appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a

Turner/Finley brief detailing the nature of counsel’s review and explaining

why Appellant’s issues lack merit. Counsel’s brief also demonstrates that he

reviewed the certified record and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Counsel notified Appellant of counsel’s request to withdraw, advised Appellant

regarding his right to retain new counsel and/or proceed pro se, and furnished

____________________________________________

2See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491, 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc).

                                            -5-
J-A19022-22

Appellant with a copy of the petition and the brief prepared for this appeal.

Thus,    counsel     has    substantially      complied   with   the   Turner/Finley

requirements. See Wrecks, supra; Karanicolas, supra. Accordingly, we

proceed with our independent assessment. See Turner, supra at 494-95,

544 A.2d at 928-29 (stating appellate court must conduct independent

analysis and agree with counsel that appeal is frivolous).

        Counsel raises the following issue on Appellant’s behalf:3

           Whether the PCRA court erred by denying Appellant’s PCRA
           petition by holding that the testimony presented by trial
           counsel at the PCRA hearing was credible and Appellant’s
           testimony was not credible?

(Turner/Finley Brief, at 2).

        “Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to

examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s determination

and whether its decision is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Beatty,

207 A.3d 957, 960-61 (Pa.Super. 2019), appeal denied, 655 Pa. 482, 218

A.3d 850 (2019). This Court grants great deference to the factual findings of

the PCRA court if the record contains any support for those findings.

Commonwealth v. Howard, 249 A.3d 1229 (Pa.Super. 2021). “[W]e review

the court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Commonwealth v. Prater, 256 A.3d

1274, 1282 (Pa.Super. 2021). Further, “we must defer to the PCRA court’s

____________________________________________

3 Appellant has not responded to the Turner/Finley brief pro se or with newly
retained private counsel.

                                            -6-
J-A19022-22

findings of fact and credibility determinations, which are supported by the

record.”    Commonwealth v. Diaz, 183 A.3d 417, 421 (Pa.Super. 2018),

aff’d, 657 Pa. 618, 226 A.3d 995 (2020).

     “Counsel      is   presumed   to   have   rendered   effective   assistance.”

Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 231 A.3d 855, 871 (Pa.Super. 2020), appeal

denied, ___ Pa. ___, 242 A.3d 908 (2020).

           [T]o establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
           defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
           ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances
           of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining
           process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence
           could have taken place. The burden is on the defendant to
           prove all three of the following prongs: (1) the underlying
           claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no
           reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction;
           and (3) but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is
           a reasonable probability that the outcome of the
           proceedings would have been different.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa.Super. 2019),

appeal denied, 654 Pa. 568, 216 A.3d 1029 (2019) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).      The failure to satisfy any prong of the test for

ineffectiveness will cause the claim to fail. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612

Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111 (2011).

     Instantly, the PCRA court made the following credibility determinations:

           [The PCRA court] ultimately found the testimony presented
           by [trial counsel] at the PCRA hearing to be credible and did
           not find [Appellant] credible. … [Trial counsel] acted
           competently and adequately advised [Appellant] of the plea
           offer and all aspects of the case, including the
           Commonwealth’s evidence against [Appellant], potential
           defenses, potential outcomes, and his recommendation.

                                        -7-
J-A19022-22

         [Appellant] made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
         decision to reject the plea offer, against the advice of his
         attorney.

(PCRA Court Opinion, filed 1/18/22, at 5) (unpaginated).

      The record supports the PCRA court’s findings. Trial counsel testified

that he had multiple discussions with Appellant about the evidence in this

case, including the victim’s consistent statements, the DNA evidence

corroborating the victim’s statements, and the evidentiary value of the

medical report showing that the victim’s hymen was intact.         Trial counsel

further stated that he advised Appellant to strongly consider accepting the

plea offer but Appellant rejected the offer and wanted to procced to trial. As

it is strictly within the purview of the PCRA court to make credibility

determinations, we discern no error in the court’s determination that

Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit. See Diaz,

supra. Following our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel

that the appeal is frivolous. See Turner, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the

court’s order denying PCRA relief and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.

      Order affirmed; counsel’s petition to withdraw is granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/23/2023

                                     -8-