Court Opinion

ID: 9388002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 16:08:12.211097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.888247
License: Public Domain

J-S07010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DAVID R. JR. R. RAMOS                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 34 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 29, 2021
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0003149-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DAVID R. JR. R. RAMOS                 :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 35 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 29, 2021
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0003151-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 DAVID R. JR R RAMOS                   :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 36 EDA 2022

         Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 29, 2021
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-CR-0003153-2016

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S07010-23

                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 DAVID R. RAMOS, JR.                       :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :   No. 37 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 29, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-CR-0003155-2016

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                             FILED APRIL 19, 2023

      Appellant, David R. Ramos, Jr. appeals from the November 29, 2021

order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act,

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46. After careful review, we affirm.

      We derive the following factual and procedural history from the PCRA

court opinion and certified record. On November 26, 2015, Appellant and

another individual went on an early-morning crime spree, which culminated

in the murder of Ryan Kelly. On March 15, 2018, Appellant entered an

agreement with the Commonwealth to plead guilty to multiple crimes in

exchange for a 22½-to-45-year incarceration sentence. The trial court,

however, did not accept the plea.

      On March 29, 2018, Appellant and the Commonwealth entered into a

new negotiated guilty plea agreement, which included a 30-to-60-year

incarceration sentence. After performing an extensive colloquy of Appellant,

the trial court accepted the plea and imposed the agreed-upon sentence.

                                     -2-
J-S07010-23

       On March 22, 2019, Appellant pro se filed a timely PCRA Petition, his

first. On November 29, 2021, after permitting counsel to withdraw pursuant

to Turner/Finley1 and issuing notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907,2 the court

dismissed Appellant’s petition without a hearing. The court appointed

appellate counsel.3

       Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and both he and the PCRA court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant raises the following issues for our

review:

       1. Whether the Appellant’s guilty plea entered on [March] 29,
       2018[,] was [] not free, intelligent[,] and voluntary because he
       was originally offered and said that he would accept a plea bargain
       on March 15, 2018 of [22½] to [45] years in a state correctional
       institution, but that on March 29, 2018 [Appellant] was forced to
       enter a plea bargain of [30] to [60] years after his lawyer told the
       Appellant that he would end [up] spending the rest of his life in
       prison if he did not accept that new deal.

       2. Whether [Appellant’s] sentence was administered in an illegal
       manner after he was asked by the Court whether he was on drugs
       and [Appellant] responded that he was not because the Appellant
       erroneously thought that the [c]ourt was questioning him about
       the usage of illegal drugs, when in fact the Appellant was taking
       legally prescribed psychiatric drugs at the time pursuant to a
       prescription that had been given to him by a prison physician.
____________________________________________

1Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v.
Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988).

2  The court issued its Rule 907 notice on October 12, 2021. Appellant did not
file a response to the Notice.

3 We note that a delay in the appointment of appellate counsel caused
Appellant to file his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement late. Since a breakdown in
the court system caused the dilatory filing, we deem Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
Statement to be timely filed.

                                           -3-
J-S07010-23

Appellant’s Br. at 3.

                                         A.

      When reviewing a denial of post-conviction relief, we “must examine

whether the record supports the PCRA court’s determination, and whether the

PCRA court’s determination 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. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795, 797 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(citation omitted).

      Additionally, we proceed mindful that it is the PCRA petitioner’s duty to

plead and prove entitlement to PCRA relief. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a). This Court

will not act as counsel and develop a claim on an appellant’s behalf. See

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007)

                                         B.

      In his first issue, Appellant alleges that the plea counsel was ineffective.

The   law   presumes    that   counsel    has   rendered   effective   assistance.

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[T]he

burden of demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on [A]ppellant.” Id. To satisfy

this burden, Appellant must plead and prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that: “(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular

course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis

designed to effectuate his interests; and, (3) but for counsel’s ineffectiveness,

there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the challenged

                                      -4-
J-S07010-23

proceeding would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d

567, 572 (Pa. 2003).

        “A PCRA petitioner must address each of these prongs on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Reid, 259 A.3d 395, 405 (Pa. 2021). Where an appellant

fails to meaningfully discuss and apply each of the three prongs of the

ineffectiveness test, we will deny relief. Id.

        Appellant alleges that his counsel was ineffective in advising him to

enter    the   30-to-60-year      negotiated        plea.   Appellant’s   Br.   at   8-16.

Unfortunately, Appellant has failed to carry his burden to prove counsel’s

ineffectiveness. He does not cite to nor address any of the three prongs of the

ineffectiveness test. Appellant’s failure to develop his claim through the

paradigm of ineffective assistance of counsel is fatal to his claim.4 Rivera, 10

A.3d at 1279.

                                               C.

        In his second issue, Appellant alleges that his negotiated guilty plea was

the product of unlawful inducement. Appellant’s Br. at 16-19. To be eligible

____________________________________________

4 We note, moreover, that Appellant’s claim is meritless on its face. Appellant
argues that counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness on March 29, 2018, caused the
trial court to refuse to accept the 22½-year plea 2 weeks earlier. This
argument is frivolous.

Appellant also makes several allegations that are not cognizable under the
PCRA and are outside the scope of his Statement of Questions Presented. We
are unable to review those claims. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)
(circumscribing the grounds for PCRA relief); Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question
will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or
is fairly suggested thereby.”).

                                           -5-
J-S07010-23

for PCRA relief related to an unlawfully induced guilty plea, the petitioner must

plead and prove that (1) his guilty plea was the result of unlawful inducement;

and (2) he is innocent. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(iii).

       Appellant claims that he was unlawfully induced into entering his

negotiated guilty plea because he misunderstood one of the court’s questions

during the plea colloquy. When the court asked Appellant if he was “under the

influence of drugs or alcohol or prescription medication,” Appellant answered:

“No.” N.T. Hr’g, 3/29/21, at 8. Appellant alleges that “he thought the

sentencing court was referring to illegal drugs” and that he was, in fact, taking

“psychiatric medication.”5 Appellant’s Br. at 17.

       Critically,   Appellant      does       not   explain   how   his   subjective

misunderstanding of the court’s colloquy rendered his plea unlawfully induced.

He likewise does not profess his innocence, a prerequisite to relief under

Section 9543(a)(2)(iii). Because it is Appellant’s burden to plead and prove

entitlement to PCRA relief, his failure to develop this claim is fatal. We, thus,

agree with the PCRA court that this claim is without merit. PCRA Ct. Op.,

6/16/22, at 15.

                                               D.

       Finally, Appellant alleges that plea counsel was ineffective for “failing to

file any motion asking for a reconsideration of his sentence and by failing to
____________________________________________

5 He does not allege that the psychiatric medication adversely affected his
ability to participate in the proceedings. To the contrary, Appellant affirmed
during the plea colloquy that he understood the proceedings and pleaded
guilty “voluntarily and of [his] own free will.” N.T. Hr’g at 9, 21.

                                           -6-
J-S07010-23

file a direct appeal.” Appellant’s Br. at 19. Appellant did not include these

issues in his Statement of Questions Involved and, thus, they are waived. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the

statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”).6

                                               E.

       In sum, we conclude that Appellant’s claims fail and, thus, affirm the

PCRA court order dismissing Appellant’s petition.

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/19/2023

____________________________________________

6 Moreover, Appellant’s argument is underdeveloped and incomprehensible.
In support of his ineffectiveness allegations, Appellant argues, in total, that
“there is no indication on the record that undersigned counsel can discern
which shows that any such disclosure and review of [Appellant’s] presentence
and mental health evaluation report occurred.” Appellant’s Br. at 19. We are
unable to discern how counsel’s or the court’s alleged failure to review
Appellant’s presentence and mental health evaluation reports caused plea
counsel to be ineffective for failing to file for reconsideration of sentence or a
direct appeal.

                                           -7-