Court Opinion

ID: 9915531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 17:08:21.579887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:24.382050
License: Public Domain

J-S37029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SAMAJJ JACKSON                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 199 EDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003466-2019

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                            FILED JAUNARY 5, 2024

       Samajj Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals from the order dismissing his

petition filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act.1 We affirm.

       In March 2019, Jackson was charged with strangulation, aggravated

assault, aggravated harassment by prisoner, and related offenses for an

attack on a psychologist from a secure juvenile center. 2 In October 2019,

Jackson, who was represented by plea counsel, entered a negotiated guilty

plea to the above-listed offenses after an extensive colloquy in which Jackson

disavowed, in writing, any mental health problems that would impair his ability

to understand the proceedings.           See Guilty Plea Statement, 10/30/19, at

____________________________________________

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

2 Jackson was seventeen years old at the time of the assault.
                                                        The matter was
transferred to the criminal division of the court of common pleas for
prosecution.
J-S37029-23

unnumbered 1.        Additionally, plea counsel certified that Jackson was not

suffering from any mental health problems that affected his ability to

understand everything which had been said, read, and done concerning his

guilty plea.    See id. at unnumbered 4.         The court immediately imposed

sentence. Jackson did not file post-sentence motions or an appeal.

       In December 2019, Jackson filed a pro se PCRA petition. PCRA counsel

was appointed and, in October 2020, filed an amended PCRA petition asserting

that plea counsel should have requested a competency evaluation prior to the

entry of Jackson’s guilty plea. In February 2021, the parties stipulated that

Jackson should undergo a competency evaluation. In December 2021, the

competency evaluator wrote a report detailing Jackson’s extensive mental

health history and diagnoses,3 and determined Jackson, at the time of the

report, had sufficient competency to “proceed with the legal process.” See

Competency Evaluation, Jackson’s Brief Exhibit A at 6 (“the mental health

evaluation”).    In November 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907

notice of intent to dismiss Jackson’s petition without a hearing.4   In December

2022, the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing.           Jackson

appealed, and he and the PCRA court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
____________________________________________

3  Jackson’s numerous diagnoses included attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar I
disorder, specific learning disorder, and borderline personality disorder. See
Competency Evaluation, Jackson’s Brief Exhibit A at 4.

4 Jackson asserts he responded to the notice on December 7, 2022, see
Jackson’s Brief at 7, but the certified record does not contain any response to
the Rule 907 notice.

                                           -2-
J-S37029-23

      Jackson raises one issue on appeal:

      Was the [PCRA] court in error for denying [Jackson’s] [PCRA
      p]etition without a hearing?

Jackson’s Brief at 5.

      The following standards govern our review:

      Appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is
      limited to the examination of whether the PCRA court’s
      determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.
      The PCRA court’s findings will not be disturbed unless there is no
      support for the findings in the certified record. This Court grants
      great deference to the findings of the PCRA court, and we will not
      disturb those findings merely because the record could support a
      contrary holding. In contrast, we review the PCRA court’s legal
      conclusions de novo.

Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 232 A.3d 739, 744 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, a “PCRA court’s

credibility findings are to be accorded great deference, and where supported

by the record, such determinations are binding on a reviewing court.”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 141 A.3d 440, 452 (Pa. 2016) (internal

citations omitted).

      For a PCRA petitioner to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, he

must establish:

      (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable
      basis existed for counsel’s action or failure to act; and (3) he
      suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error, with prejudice
      measured by whether there is a reasonable probability the result
      of the proceeding would have been different. Counsel is presumed
      to have rendered effective assistance. Additionally, counsel

                                     -3-
J-S37029-23

      cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim.
      Finally, because a PCRA petitioner must establish all the
      [ineffective assistance test] prongs to be entitled to relief, we are
      not required to analyze the elements of an ineffectiveness claim
      in any specific order; thus, if a claim fails under any required
      element, we may dismiss the claim on that basis.

Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015) (citations

omitted). To prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness concerning a guilty plea, a

petitioner must show that but for counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness he would

not have pled guilty. See Commonwealth v. Timchak, 69 A.3d 765, 774-

75 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      Jackson claims the mental health evaluation alerted the PCRA court to

his previous treatment for, and diagnosis of, mental health conditions. See

Jackson’s Brief at 13-15.     He asserts that had plea counsel ordered a

competency evaluation at the time of his plea, it “would have been beneficial

for the defense.” See id. at 15.

      The PCRA court noted Jackson signed a guilty plea colloquy affirmatively

stating that no emotional or physical problems affected his ability to

understand the proceedings and his decisions. The PCRA court also noted that

at the time of the plea it had conducted a thorough colloquy to ensure that

Jackson’s plea was knowing, intentional, and voluntary, and Jackson stated

that he had no questions for the court or counsel about his plea. See PCRA

Court Opinion, 3/31/23, at 6-7.          The court further stated that the

Commonwealth agreed “in an abundance of caution” to Jackson’s subsequent

mental health evaluation and that the clinical psychologist who conducted the

                                      -4-
J-S37029-23

evaluation found Jackson competent to proceed with the legal process. See

id. at 8.

      We find no error in the PCRA court’s ruling. Jackson averred he had no

mental health problems that would impair his ability to understand his guilty

plea and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. See Guilty

Plea Statement, 10/30/19, at unnumbered 1. A petitioner is bound by his

statements during a guilty plea colloquy and cannot later disavow or contradict

them. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 794 A.2d 378, 384 (Pa. Super.

2002).

      Moreover, Jackson has failed to establish any error in the dismissal of

his claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel.     He asserts only that a

mental health evaluation “would have been beneficial to the defense.” See

Jackson’s Brief at 15. To the extent he suggests he could not understand the

guilty plea proceeding, he did not offer any evidence that, at that relevant

time, he was unable to understand his actions. He does not direct us to any

such finding in the mental health evaluation. That Jackson may have had

mental health issues is not proof that his mental state affected his ability to

voluntarily and knowingly enter his plea at that time. He has not argued on

appeal that he would not have pled guilty had he known about his mental

health issues. Thus, Jackson has not alleged with any specificity the necessary

prejudice to prevail on his claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to

request a mental health evaluation.

                                      -5-
J-S37029-23

      Lastly, to the extent Jackson asserts he was entitled to an evidentiary

hearing, “[i]t is well[-]settled that there is no absolute right to an evidentiary

hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the

record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not

necessary.” Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 328 (Pa. Super.

2019) (citation omitted).     To obtain a PCRA hearing, a petitioner must

demonstrate that he raised a genuine issue of material fact which if resolved

in his favor would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise

abused its discretion in denying a hearing. See Commonwealth v. Paddy,

15 A.3d 431, 442 (Pa. 2011).       We review an order dismissing a petition

without   an   evidentiary   hearing   for   an   abuse   of   discretion.      See

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 273 A.3d 13, 18 (Pa. Super. 2022).                   For the

reasons set forth above, Jackson fails to demonstrate a material issue of fact

on which he was due a hearing and does not show prejudice from counsel’s

alleged ineffectiveness. Thus, no relief is due. See Paddy, 15 A.3d at 442;

Timchak, 69 A.3d at 774-75.

      Order affirmed.

                                       -6-
J-S37029-23

Date: 1/5/2024

                 -7-