Court Opinion

ID: 9387056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 16:08:45.03942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.075947
License: Public Domain

J-S41018-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    CHARLES WILLIAM HACKLEY                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 125 MDA 2022

            Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 30, 2021
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
                 Criminal Division at CP-40-CR-0003539-2017

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

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                              FILED: APRIL 14, 2023

        Charles William Hackley (Appellant) appeals from the order dismissing

his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.1 We affirm.

        On August 7, 2018, the trial court convicted Appellant of one count of

escape, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121(a), relative to Appellant’s July 12, 2017 arrest

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 This case returns to the Superior Court following remand for Appellant to file
a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Hackley, No. 125 MDA
2022 (Pa. Super. Feb. 1, 2023) (unpublished memorandum); see also
Commonwealth v. Parrish, 224 A.3d 682 (Pa. 2020) (stating “whenever
post-conviction counsel’s performance is so deficient that it has entirely denied
the post-conviction petitioner the right to appeal, remand to the lower court
is the appropriate remedial action so that new counsel can take the necessary
steps to restore that right.”).
J-S41018-22

for drug offenses (charged separately at docket CP-40-CR-0003536-2017).

On September 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

48 – 96 months of incarceration (consisting of 24 – 48 months for the drug

convictions at docket CP-40-CR-0003536,2 and a consecutive 24 – 48 months

for the escape conviction in the instant case). Appellant timely appealed, and

this Court affirmed. See Commonwealth v. Hackley, 1769 MDA 2018, at

*2 (Pa. Super. Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished memorandum).

       Appellant timely filed a PCRA petition on August 17, 2020. The PCRA

court held a hearing on April 13, 2021, and dismissed Appellant’s petition on

November 30, 2021.3 Appellant timely appealed. We remanded for Appellant

to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and provided “the PCRA court shall have the

option of filing a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion ….” Commonwealth v.

Hackley, 125 MDA 2022, at *4 (Pa. Super. Feb. 1, 2023) (unpublished

memorandum). Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on February 15,

2023, and the PCRA court filed a supplemental opinion on March 9, 2013.

       Appellant presents two issues. He asserts trial counsel was ineffective

for “failing to move for the return of [his] money/property”; he also claims his

charges “should have been dismissed because the Commonwealth failed to

____________________________________________

2 Appellant has not appealed from the judgment sentence imposed for the
drug convictions at CP-40-CR-0003536-17.

3The Honorable Joseph F. Sklarosky, Jr., presided at Appellant’s trial and
PCRA proceedings.

                                           -2-
J-S41018-22

establish a prima facie case [by] relying solely on hearsay evidence at the

preliminary hearing.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of

on Appeal, 2/15/23. Appellant’s issues lack merit.

      Our standard of review for the denial of PCRA relief is “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.

Parker, 249 A.3d 590, 594 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).

      To prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, a PCRA petitioner

must demonstrate:

      that the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) that no
      reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and
      (3) that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s
      error.    To prove that counsel’s chosen strategy lacked a
      reasonable basis, a petitioner must prove that an alternative not
      chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than
      the course actually pursued. Regarding the prejudice prong, a
      petitioner must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability
      that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different
      but for counsel’s action or inaction. Counsel is presumed to be
      effective; accordingly, to succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness[,]
      the petitioner must advance sufficient evidence to overcome this
      presumption.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257, 1272 (Pa. 2016) (citations and

quotations omitted).

      In his first issue, Appellant seeks return of $748 and claims his counsel

was ineffective for failing to preserve and pursue the return of his money.

                                      -3-
J-S41018-22

This claim is not cognizable under the PCRA. To be eligible for PCRA relief, a

petitioner must plead and prove:

      (2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more
      of the following:

        (i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the
        Constitution or laws of the United States 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.

        (ii) 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.

        (iii) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances
        make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to
        plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent.

        (iv) The improper obstruction by government officials of the
        petitioner's right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue
        existed and was properly preserved in the trial court.

        …..

        (vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory
        evidence that has subsequently become available and would
        have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.

        (vii) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful
        maximum.

        (viii) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2) (emphasis added).

      Appellant’s escape conviction and sentence of 24 – 48 months’

incarceration was not the result of his counsel’s failure to seek the return of

his money. In rejecting this claim, the PCRA court properly recognized that

                                     -4-
J-S41018-22

such relief is not available under the PCRA. See PCRA Court Supplemental

Opinion, 3/9/23, at 5-6. Appellant’s first issue is meritless.

       In his second issue, Appellant claims the Commonwealth failed to

establish a prima facie case by presenting and relying on hearsay evidence at

Appellant’s preliminary hearing. The PCRA court rejected this claim because,

inter alia, Appellant’s “case proceeded to a bench trial and he was convicted[,

such that] any legal defect that may have occurred during [Appellant’s]

preliminary hearing has been cured.” Id. at 8. The PCRA court concluded

that even if Appellant “were to establish that his pretrial attorney was

ineffective for not successfully challenging the evidence offered at his

preliminary hearing, he would be unable to establish that he was prejudiced.”

Id. (citing omitted).4 We agree.

       This Court has explained:

       The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to avoid the incarceration
       or trial of a defendant unless there is sufficient evidence to
       establish a crime was committed and the probability the defendant
       could be connected with the crime. Its purpose is not to prove [a]
       defendant’s guilt. Once appellant has gone to trial and been
       found guilty of the crime, any defect in the preliminary
       hearing is rendered immaterial.

____________________________________________

4  The Commonwealth observes that the PCRA court’s order and opinion
“include extensive discussion of the numerous problems [Appellant’s] PCRA
claims faced,” and states that it “would echo the PCRA [c]ourt’s criticisms.”
Commonwealth Brief at 12.

                                           -5-
J-S41018-22

Commonwealth v. Tyler, 587 A.2d 326, 328 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citation

omitted, italics in original, bold emphasis added). As the trial court convicted

Appellant of escape, his second issue does not merit relief.

      For the above reasons, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing

Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/14/2023

                                      -6-