Court Opinion

ID: 9412807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 17:09:20.739426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:26.158878
License: Public Domain

J-A13028-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  WILLIAM DUANE MALDONADO-                     :
  ROSADO                                       :
                                               :   No. 856 MDA 2022
                       Appellant               :

             Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered May 20, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-38-CR-0000698-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                             FILED: AUGUST 1, 2023

       William Duane Maldonado-Rosado appeals from the order, entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, denying his petition filed

pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. We affirm based on the opinion authored by the Honorable Bradford H.

Charles.

       A jury convicted Maldonado-Rosado of possession with intent to deliver

(PWID) (heroin and fentanyl),1 possession of a controlled substance,2

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

2 Id. at § 780-113(a)(16).
J-A13028-23

possession     of    drug    paraphernalia,3     and    false   identification   to   law

enforcement.4       The trial court sentenced Maldonado-Rosado to an aggregate

term of 60 to 120 months’ imprisonment.                Maldonado-Rosado filed post-

sentence motions, which were denied.                 Maldonado-Rosado filed a direct

appeal,    and      this   Court   affirmed    his    judgment    of   sentence.      See

Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Rosado, 1411 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. filed

June 10, 2021) (unpublished memorandum decision).

       Maldonado-Rosado did not seek review with our Supreme Court.

Instead, on June 28, 2021, he filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA

court appointed counsel, who filed an amended PCRA petition on December 7,

2021, alleging misconduct on the part of two jurors who served on the jury at

Maldonado-Rosado’s 2019 trial.

       The PCRA court created a detailed process by which Maldonado-

Rosado’s claims could be addressed. The PCRA court scheduled a pre-hearing

conference, which was held on February 22, 2022. Following that conference,

the court scheduled a factual hearing for May 19, 2022, at which the court

would hear from the individuals that Maldonado-Rosado identified as having

information to corroborate his claim of juror misconduct. The court also noted

that, after that hearing, a second factual hearing would be scheduled, at which

the jurors in question would be subpoenaed to testify. The court set forth the

____________________________________________

3 Id. at § 780-11(a)(32).

4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4914(a).

                                           -2-
J-A13028-23

details of how that second factual hearing would proceed.           See Order,

2/22/22.

      At the May 19, 2022 hearing, Maldonado-Rosado’s counsel informed the

court that he was unable to locate either of the two individuals Maldonado-

Rosado identified as having direct evidence of juror misconduct.       Because

Maldonado-Rosado presented no evidence to support his claims, the court

denied Maldonado-Rosado's PCRA petition. See Order, 5/19/22.

      On June 3, 2022, Maldonado-Rosado filed a timely appeal. Both the

PCRA court and Maldonado-Rosado have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Maldonado-Rosado raises two issues on appeal:

           1. Did the [PCRA c]ourt commit prejudicial error by not
              granting [Maldonado-Rosado’s] request for additional time
              to continue his search for the two (2) witnesses that
              submitted written statements declaring that several of the
              jurors selected for his trial knew of his case and prejudged
              him guilty?

           2. Did the [PCRA c]ourt commit prejudicial error by denying
              [Maldonado-Rosado’s PCRA petition] without allowing a
              hearing on the merits?

Appellant’s Brief, at 6.

      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.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d

988, 992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “The PCRA court’s findings will

not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified

record.”    Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014)

                                      -3-
J-A13028-23

(citations omitted). “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.” Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d

136, 140 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).

      The PCRA court stated:

      [Maldonado-Rosado’s] claim of juror misconduct was presented to
      this [c]ourt, and we carefully evaluated it with the goal of
      balancing [Maldonado-Rosado’s] ability to present his claims with
      the concerns about juror privacy. This [c]ourt was meticulously
      specific in outlining a process by which [Maldonado-Rosado] claim
      of juror misconduct could be addressed.            Moreover, we
      communicated our proposal to everyone in advance of conducting
      a conference scheduled for the specific purpose[] of approving a
      plan. At the conference, both [Maldonado-Rosado] and the
      Commonwealth approved of the process proposed by the
      [c]ourt.      That process was then implemented. . . .
      [Maldonado-Rosado] was then given three (3) months to
      locates and subpoena his witnesses. During this 3-month
      period of time, [Maldonado-Rosado] did not seek additional
      time. Instead, he waited until the date of the hearing to request
      additional time. He then proclaimed in [c]ourt that it should have
      been the responsibility of the District Attorney or the [c]ourt to
      locate the individuals who he claimed could prove juror
      misconduct.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/22, at 26 (emphasis added).

      As a PCRA petitioner, Maldonado-Rosado has the burden to plead and

prove his claims in order to obtain relief under the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9543(a).   Given the court’s consideration and carefully detailed process for

allowing Maldonado-Rosado to proceed with this claim, and the fact that

Maldonado-Rosado failed to present any evidence to prove his claim,        we

conclude the PCRA court committed no error.      Miller, supra. We rely upon

                                    -4-
J-A13028-23

Judge Charles’ comprehensive opinion to affirm the order denying Maldonado-

Rosado’s PCRA petition. We direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion

in the event of further proceedings.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/01/2023

                                       -5-