Court Opinion

ID: 9366004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 17:07:55.450203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.725822
License: Public Domain

J-S38038-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
              v.                            :
                                            :
                                            :
 JOSE LUIS ORTIZ-OCASIO                     :
                                            :
                     Appellant              :   No. 1148 EDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 4, 2022,
            in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County,
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001658-2019.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                        FILED JANUARY 25, 2023

      Jose Luis Ortiz-Ocasio appeals from the order denying his first petition

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§

9541-46. We affirm.

      The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows: On January

10, 2019, Ortiz-Ocasio crashed his vehicle into a parked car. Police responded

to the scene and determined that he was under the influence of PCP and

incapable of safely operating his vehicle. Additionally, at the time of his arrest,

police recovered a PCP-laced cigarette in Ortiz-Ocasio’s possession.

      On March 3, 2020, a jury convicted Ortiz-Ocasio of possession of a

controlled substance and driving under the influence—third offense.           That

same day, the trial court found him guilty of the summary offense of careless

driving.   On July 2, 2020, the trial court sentenced Ortiz-Ocasio to an
J-S38038-22

aggregate term of 18 to 36 months of incarceration, to be followed by four

years of probation. Ortiz-Ocasio filed neither a post-sentence motion nor a

direct appeal.

      On September 16, 2020, Ortiz-Ocasio filed a pro se PCRA petition. The

PCRA court appointed counsel, and PCRA counsel filed an amended petition

on April 22, 2021. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 25, 2021.

Following the filing of briefs, the PCRA court denied Ortiz-Ocasio’s petition on

April 4, 2022. This appealed followed. Both Ortiz-Ocasio and the PCRA court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Ortiz-Ocasio raises the following issue on appeal:

         Whether the [PCRA] court erred in failing to find that trial
         counsel was ineffective for failing to fire a requested direct
         appeal or for failing to consult with Ortiz-Ocasio regarding
         an appeal?

Ortiz-Ocasio’s Brief at 4 (excess capitalization omitted).

      This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a petition

under the PCRA is to ascertain whether “the determination of the PCRA court

is supported by the evidence of record and is 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.” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92

(Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).

      Ortiz-Ocasio’s issue asserts the ineffectiveness of trial counsel.       To

obtain relief under the PCRA premised on a claim that counsel was ineffective,

a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel’s

                                      -2-
J-S38038-22

ineffectiveness so undermined the truth determining process that no reliable

adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. Commonwealth

v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009).                  “Generally, counsel’s

performance is presumed to be constitutionally adequate, and counsel will

only be deemed ineffective upon a sufficient showing by the petitioner.” Id.

This requires the petitioner to demonstrate that: (1) the underlying claim is

of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her

action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's act or

omission. Id. at 533. A finding of "prejudice" requires the petitioner to show

"that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. A failure

to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the

claim. Commonwealth v. Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010).

      Ortiz first asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct

appeal even though he asked counsel to do so. As this Court has recently

summarized:

            Our Supreme Court has held that where “there is an
         unjustified failure to file a requested appeal, the conduct of
         counsel falls beneath the range of competence demanded of
         attorneys in criminal cases” and denies the accused the
         assistance of counsel that is guaranteed by the Sixth
         Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania
         Constitution. Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214,
         736 A.2d 564, 572 (Pa. 1999).             Such an oversight
         constitutes prejudice and per se ineffectiveness under the
         PCRA.      Id.     However, “[b]efore a court will find
         ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failing to file a direct

                                      -3-
J-S38038-22

         appeal, [the petitioner] must prove that he requested an
         appeal and that counsel disregarded this request.”
         Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa.
         Super. 2001)(emphasis added).

Commonwealth v. Mojica, 242 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa. Super. 2020).

      Here, Ortiz-Ocasio and his witness, Ms. Campbell, and trial counsel

presented conflicting testimony regarding Ortiz-Ocasio’s ineffectiveness claim.

The PCRA court summarized their testimony as follows:

             Here, there are genuine issues concerning [Ortiz-
         Ocasio’s] request for an appeal. According to the testimony
         at the October 25, 2021 hearing, it is apparent that [Ortiz-
         Ocasio] requested an appeal as early as the disposition of
         the pretrial motions filed by Trial Counsel. At that time, Trial
         Counsel explained the procedure to [Ortiz-Ocasio] and
         informed him that an appeal would have to wait until after
         sentencing.      Following conviction, [Ortiz-Ocasio] was
         sentenced four months later. During this ample period of
         time, [Ortiz -Ocasio] never requested an appeal. Trial
         [C]ounsel maintained that [Ortiz-Ocasio] never directly
         requested that he file an appeal after sentencing. In fact,
         [Ortiz-Ocasio] testified that he did not directly request an
         appeal after the court imposed the sentence. Trial Counsel
         further testified that he did speak with Ms. Campbell
         regarding the timing of the appeal process. However, after
         describing appellate procedure and the terms of [Ortiz-
         Ocasio’s] sentence, Ms. Campbell informed Trial Counsel
         that [Ortiz-Ocasio] would not file an appeal. Ultimately,
         [Ortiz-Ocasio] failed to make his intention to request an
         appeal known to Trial Counsel. Accordingly, [Ortiz-Ocasio’s]
         amended PCRA [petition] as it relates to Trial Counsel’s
         failure to perfect an appeal is denied.

PCRA Court Opinion, 4/4/22, at 7-8 (citations omitted).

      Our review of the PCRA hearing transcript supports the PCRA court’s

conclusion. As a matter of credibility, the PCRA court believed trial counsel’s

                                      -4-
J-S38038-22

version of the contested facts. We cannot disturb this determination. See

Commonwealth v. Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023, 1025 (Pa. Super. 1999)

(explaining that when a PCRA court’s determination of credibility is supported

by the record, it cannot be disturbed on appeal). Thus, to the extent Ortiz-

Ocasio asserts that trial counsel disregarded his request to file an appeal, his

ineffectiveness claim fails.

      In the second part of his issue, Ortiz-Ocasio claims that even if he did

not prove trial counsel’s failure to file a requested appeal, he is still entitled

to relief because trial counsel failed to consult with him. See Commonwealth

v. Touw, 781 A.2d 1250, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Roe v. Flores-

Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000)) (concluding that trial counsel has a

constitutionally-imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal

when there is reason to think that a rational defendant would want to appeal

or when a particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he

was interested in appealing).

      This Court has long held that an ineffectiveness claim based upon trial

counsel’s failure to consult with a defendant is distinct from an ineffectiveness

claim based upon the failure to file a requested appeal and the two claims are

subject to different prejudice standards—the former requires a defendant to

prove prejudice while in the latter prejudice is presumed. Touw, 781 A.2d at

1253-54. Because this specific claim was not raised below or in Ortiz-Ocasio’s

                                      -5-
J-S38038-22

Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, the PCRA court did

not address it.

       Because Ortiz-Ocasio is raising the claim for the first time on appeal, it

is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Commonwealth v. Reid, 259 A.3d 395,

413-14 (Pa. 2021) (explaining that when an appellant has not included an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his PCRA petition or in his Rule

1925(b) statement, the appellate courts will find that claim waived on

appeal).1 Thus, we do not consider the merits of Ortiz-Ocasio’s ineffectiveness

claim that trial counsel failed to consult with him about filing an appeal.

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/25/2023

____________________________________________

1 In pertinent part, Ortiz-Ocasio’s Rule 1925(b) statement reads as follows:
“The PCRA Court erred in failing to conclude that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to perfect an appeal despite Ortiz-Ocasio directing that such appeal
be perfected.” Concise Statement of Errors Complained Of On Appeal,
5/18/22, at 2 (unnumbered). Compare Commonwealth v. Parrish, 273
A.3d 989, 1000-1001 n.9 (Pa. 2022) (holding that “[i]n consideration of the
fact that an assertion of that counsel deficiently failed to file an appeal
encompasses arguments regarding deficient consultation, and in light of the
entirety of paragraph seventeen [of Parrish’s Corrected 1925(B) Statement],
Parrish has properly presented [the failure to consult] issue for review”).

                                           -6-
J-S38038-22

              -7-