Court Opinion

ID: 9374240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 17:07:50.437901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.070925
License: Public Domain

J-S28044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    TIMOTHY ALVA NEFF                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 549 MDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 7, 2022
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-18-CR-0000397-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                             FILED: FEBRUARY 22, 2023

       Appellant, Timothy Alva Neff, appeals from the order entered in the

Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition brought

under the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

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

May 11, 2019, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with first degree murder

and related offenses in connection with the stabbing of Appellant’s sister,

Agnes Neff (“Victim”).       At the time, Appellant was serving a probationary

sentence for a prior aggravated assault conviction. Appellant entered a guilty

plea to third-degree murder on September 10, 2020. On November 12, 2020,

the court sentenced Appellant to 20 to 40 years’ incarceration on the third-

____________________________________________

1   42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546
J-S28044-22

degree murder conviction. The court also revoked Appellant’s probation and

sentenced him to 5 to 10 years’ incarceration on the aggravated assault

conviction, to run concurrent to his third-degree murder sentence. Appellant

did not appeal his judgment of sentence. On May 13, 2021, Appellant timely

filed a pro se PCRA petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The

court appointed PCRA counsel, who filed an amended petition on October 28,

2021.

        The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing on December 8, 2021.

Appellant testified that in 2019, he was living in the same residence as Victim

and their brother, William Neff. Appellant stated that on the day in question,

Victim appeared intoxicated, and Appellant asked her when she was going to

“sober up.”   In response, Victim kicked Appellant in the back of his knee,

injuring him and limiting his movement.          Appellant testified that Victim

grabbed a paring knife and began advancing toward Appellant to attack him.

Appellant also grabbed a knife and a scuffle ensued between Appellant, Victim,

and their brother, resulting in all three falling on the floor. Appellant testified

that Victim was behind him, and Appellant went to hit her with his elbow and

accidentally stabbed her with the knife. Appellant stated that he explained

the circumstances to plea counsel, and counsel advised Appellant to plead

guilty to third-degree murder instead of pursuing a claim of self-defense.

        On cross-examination, Appellant admitted that he left the house

immediately after stabbing Victim and did not pause to render aid.

                                       -2-
J-S28044-22

Additionally, Appellant acknowledged that plea counsel discussed the contents

of discovery with him and explained the risks of taking the case to trial,

including the possibility of receiving a sentence of life imprisonment.

Appellant agreed that prior to entering his guilty plea he signed a written plea

colloquy and affirmed under oath that he had the opportunity to fully discuss

his case with plea counsel, was satisfied with counsel’s representation, and

was not pressured or forced in any way to plead guilty to any charges.

      Plea counsel testified that Appellant suggested to him that Victim had a

knife during the altercation, but there was no evidence of a second knife used

in the altercation to corroborate Appellant’s version of events. Plea counsel

engaged the services of a forensic pathologist, who determined that there was

no scientific evidence to support a self-defense claim. Additionally, when plea

counsel discussed the matter with Appellant, Appellant did not state that he

acted in self-defense but maintained that he accidentally stabbed Victim.

Accordingly, plea counsel determined that self-defense was not a viable

defense. Plea counsel explained to Appellant that if he was convicted of first-

degree murder, he could face a sentence of life imprisonment and a

consecutive sentence for his probation violation. Plea counsel negotiated a

plea agreement for Appellant which resulted in a sentence of 20 to 40 years’

incarceration.   Plea counsel also secured an agreement that Appellant’s

probation violation sentence would run concurrently to his third-degree

murder sentence.     Further, plea counsel testified that he reviewed every

                                     -3-
J-S28044-22

paragraph of the plea agreement with Appellant, and he had no doubt that

Appellant entered his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

      On March 7, 2022, the court denied PCRA relief. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal on April 4, 2022.        On April 5, 2022, the court ordered

Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on April 25, 2022.

      Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

         Whether [Appellant] was provided with ineffective
         assistance of counsel such that his denial of post conviction
         collateral relief should be reversed.

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

      On appeal, Appellant argues that plea counsel failed to properly evaluate

and pursue a viable self-defense where Appellant informed counsel that Victim

had a knife.    Appellant contends that he told plea counsel that he was

attempting to defend himself from Victim when he inadvertently stabbed her

and caused her death. Appellant claims that plea counsel’s failure to pursue

a   self-defense   theory    after   hearing   Appellant’s   explanation    of   the

circumstances constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.               Appellant

concludes the PCRA court erred denying PCRA relief, and this Court should

grant relief. We disagree.

      As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellant’s entire argument

section is merely one and a half pages and consists of little to no citations to

the record or relevant authority.      Rather, Appellant’s argument section is

                                       -4-
J-S28044-22

nothing more than a brief summary of Appellant’s testimony at the PCRA

hearing, and conclusory statements that plea counsel was ineffective.

Significantly, Appellant does not reference or make any arguments regarding

the three prongs that must be established to prove an ineffective assistance

of counsel claim.   Therefore, Appellant has waived his only argument on

appeal.   See Commonwealth v. Plante, 914 A.2d 916, 924 (Pa.Super.

2006), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 748, 931 A.2d 657 (2007) (reiterating: “We

have repeatedly held that failure to develop an argument with citation to, and

analysis of, relevant authority waives the issue on review”).

      Moreover, even if Appellant had preserved his issue for our review, it

would not merit relief. “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. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 960-61 (Pa.Super. 2019), appeal

denied, 655 Pa. 428, 218 A.3d 850 (2019). 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 (2007).            “The PCRA court’s credibility

determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court.”

Commonwealth v. Medina, 92 A.3d 1210, 2014 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal

dismissed as improvidently granted, 636 Pa. 77, 140 A.3d 675 (2016).

      To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel:

                                        -5-
J-S28044-22

         [A] defendant 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. The burden is on
         the defendant to prove all three of the following prongs: (1)
         the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel
         had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her 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.

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa.Super. 2019),

appeal denied, 654 Pa. 568, 216 A.3d 1029 (2019) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).

      Instantly, the court credited plea counsel’s testimony that he discussed

the facts of the case with Appellant, evaluated the viability of a self-defense

claim based on Appellant’s statements, and determined that there was no

evidence to support a theory of self-defense after consultation with a forensic

pathologist. The record supports the court’s credibility determinations in favor

of plea counsel. See Medina, supra. Notably, Appellant’s testimony at the

PCRA hearing was that he accidentally stabbed Victim, not that he used deadly

force because he reasonably believed such force was needed to defend himself

from harm. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(a) (defining use of force justifiable for

protection as when actor believes such force is immediately necessary for

purpose of protecting himself against use of unlawful force by such other

person on present occasion). On this record, we agree with the PCRA court

that Appellant failed to establish arguable merit to succeed on his claim of

                                     -6-
J-S28044-22

ineffectiveness. See Sandusky, supra. Therefore, even if Appellant’s claim

on appeal was not waived, it would merit no relief. Accordingly, we affirm the

court’s order denying PCRA relief.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/22/2023

                                     -7-