Court Opinion

ID: 9942281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 18:12:37.581157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:53.765051
License: Public Domain

J-S29021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :         PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                 :
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
  CHARLES ARTHUR                                :
  CHRISTOPHERSON                                :
                                                :
                       Appellant                        No. 425 MDA 2023

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 15, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000038-2021

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                         FILED: FEBRUARY 20, 2024

       Charles Arthur Christopherson, appeals pro se from the order entered

in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed his first

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

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

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with two counts each of aggravated

assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”),

and one count of possessing a firearm prohibited. On September 30, 2021,

Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the counts of simple assault, REAP

and possessing a firearm prohibited.           The Commonwealth agreed to nolle

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S29021-23

prosse the two charges of aggravated assault.        The trial court sentenced

Appellant to an aggregate term of five to ten years’ incarceration on December

1, 2021. Appellant did not seek direct review in this Court.

       On September 26, 2022, Appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA petition,

alleging that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.    The

PCRA court appointed counsel. On December 12, 2022, PCRA counsel filed a

Turner/Finley “no-merit” letter and a motion to withdraw as counsel.2 The

court granted PCRA counsel’s motion to withdraw and filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907

notice of intent to dismiss without a hearing on January 5, 2023. On January

9, 2023, Appellant filed an amended pro se PCRA petition, largely asserting

the same claims he asserted in his initial PCRA petition. The court dismissed

Appellant’s amended PCRA petition on February 15, 2023. Appellant filed a

timely notice of appeal on March 15, 2023. On March 17, 2023, the court

ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal, and Appellant timely complied on March 20, 2023.

       Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

          Whether prior [plea] counsel was ineffective for failing to
          suppress evidence and for failing to mitigate the
          circumstances in the matter?

          Whether prior [plea] counsel was ineffective for coercing
          Appellant into taking a guilty plea that was involuntary and
          the trial court should have denied taking the plea?

____________________________________________

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

                                           -2-
J-S29021-23

          Whether the [PCRA] court denied Appellant’s constitutional
          rights to effective counsel?

(Appellant’s Brief at 3).

       In his issues combined, Appellant argues that plea counsel failed to

investigate and find grounds to file a motion to suppress all evidence.

Specifically, Appellant asserts that plea counsel failed to file a motion to

suppress video evidence that did not contain a time and date stamp. Appellant

further avers that plea counsel “coerced [Appellant] into taking an involuntary

guilty plea while Appellant was detoxing from alcohol and was not in a

competent state of mind.”         (Id. at 7). Appellant concludes that the PCRA

court erred in concluding that plea counsel provided effective assistance of

counsel, and this Court should vacate the order dismissing his PCRA petition.3

We disagree.

       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. Conway,

14 A.3d 101 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795

(2011). This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if

the record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd,

923 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d 74

____________________________________________

3 Appellant does not allege that the PCRA court erred in granting PCRA
counsel’s motion to withdraw or that PCRA counsel provided ineffective
assistance.

                                           -3-
J-S29021-23

(2007). We do not give the same deference, however, to the court’s legal

conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa.Super. 2012).

      The    law   presumes      counsel     has   rendered     effective   assistance.

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 858 A.2d 1219, 1222 (Pa.Super. 2004),

appeal denied, 582 Pa. 695, 871 A.2d 189 (2005). To prevail on a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner 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.

Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal

denied, 596 Pa. 707, 940 A.2d 365 (2007). The petitioner must demonstrate:

(1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel lacked a reasonable

strategic basis for his 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. Id. at 880. “The petitioner bears the

burden of proving all three prongs of the test.” Id.

      “Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty

plea will serve as a basis for relief only if the ineffectiveness caused the

defendant to enter an involuntary or unknowing plea.” Commonwealth v.

Moser, 921 A.2d 526, 531 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citation omitted).

Pennsylvania law does not require the defendant to “be pleased with the

outcome of his decision to enter a plea of guilty[; a]ll that is required is that

                                            -4-
J-S29021-23

his decision to plead guilty be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made.”

Id. at 528-29.      A guilty plea will be deemed valid if the totality of the

circumstances surrounding the plea shows that the defendant had a full

understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea such that he

knowingly    and    intelligently   entered   the    plea   of    his   own    accord.

Commonwealth v. Fluharty, 632 A.2d 312 (Pa.Super. 1993). “In order to

make a knowing and intelligent waiver, the individual must be aware of both

the nature of the right and the risks and consequences of forfeiting it.”

Commonwealth v. Houtz, 856 A.2d 119, 122 (Pa.Super. 2004) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Payson, 723 A.2d 695, 700 (Pa.Super. 1999)).

      Pennsylvania law presumes the defendant is aware of what he is doing

when he enters a guilty plea, and the defendant bears the burden to prove

otherwise.    Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517, 523 (Pa.Super.

2003). “A person who elects to plead guilty is bound by the statements he

makes in open court while under oath and he may not later assert grounds for

withdrawing the plea which contradict the statements he made at his plea

colloquy.”    Id.     Further, to establish prejudice based on counsel’s

ineffectiveness in connection with a guilty plea, the petitioner must show there

is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the petitioner would

not   have   pled   guilty   and    would   have    insisted     on   going   to   trial.

Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 192 (Pa.Super. 2013).

      “[W]here a defendant alleges that counsel ineffectively failed to pursue

                                       -5-
J-S29021-23

a suppression motion, the inquiry is whether the failure to file the motion is

itself objectively unreasonable, which requires a showing that the motion

would be meritorious.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 179 A.3d 1153, 1160

(Pa.Super. 2018).     “The prejudice inquiry still requires the defendant to

establish that he would have filed the motion and proceeded to trial instead

of accepting the plea, not simply that he would have filed the motion.” Id.

Additionally, “a defendant need not be apprised of every possible suppression

motion as a predicate to a finding that the plea was voluntary, because the

decision to seek suppression is left to counsel as a matter of strategy in the

event a plea bargain is not reached.” Id.

       Instantly, Appellant has failed to explain the content or relevance of the

video that he alleges plea counsel should have sought to suppress. Further,

Appellant fails to argue why the video, or any other evidence, was

objectionable such that a motion to suppress would have been successful.

See id. Additionally, the record demonstrates that Appellant was fully aware

of his right to challenge the Commonwealth’s evidence and voluntarily and

knowingly elected to waive that right and plead guilty to the charges against

him.    See Moser, supra; Houtz, supra; Fluharty, supra.               Appellant

executed a written guilty plea colloquy affirming that his decision to plead

guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In the written plea colloquy,

Appellant expressly acknowledged that he was giving up the right to be heard

on any suppression motions that may have been filed in his case by pleading

                                      -6-
J-S29021-23

guilty. At his plea hearing, Appellant confirmed that he discussed all the rights

listed in the written plea colloquy with his attorney and authorized his attorney

to sign the plea colloquy on his behalf.     On this record, Appellant cannot

succeed on his ineffectiveness claim based on plea counsel’s failure to file a

suppression motion. See Turetsky, supra.

        Regarding Appellant’s claim that plea counsel coerced him into entering

a guilty plea based on his allegedly impaired state, Appellant did not include

this claim in his initial or amended PCRA petition.     As such, Appellant has

waived this claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating: “Issues not raised in the

[PCRA] court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”).

Even if Appellant had preserved the issue, the record belies Appellant’s claim.

Appellant asserts that plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty because

he was not in a competent state of mind due to detoxing from alcohol abuse.

Nevertheless, Appellant affirmed in his written plea colloquy that he was not

under the influence of alcohol and that he was not taking medication or

receiving treatment for any mental illness that hindered his ability to

understand the plea.      Appellant further affirmed that he had not been

threatened or forced to plead guilty and was entering the plea by his own free

will.   Appellant is bound by his statements.     See Pollard, supra.      Thus,

Appellant’s claim that plea counsel coerced his plea is waived and otherwise

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying PCRA relief.

        Order affirmed.

                                      -7-
J-S29021-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/20/2024

                           -8-