Court Opinion

ID: 9368302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 17:07:34.742464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.916916
License: Public Domain

J-S41021-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    ALFONZO GLENN                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 577 MDA 2022

              Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 16, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
                  Criminal Division at CP-40-CR-0001453-2017

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

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                           FILED: FEBRUARY 3, 2023

        Alfonzo Glenn (Appellant) appeals from the order disposing his first

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 9541-9546.        Appellant’s appointed counsel, Matthew P. Kelly, Esquire

(Counsel or Attorney Kelly), has petitioned to withdraw from representation

pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and

Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). We

grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the PCRA court’s order.

        In March 2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with various

crimes related to Appellant’s sexual and physical assault of his romantic

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41021-22

partner (the victim).1 On January 23, 2019, Appellant entered an open guilty

plea to aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). That same day, the

trial court sentenced Appellant to 72-156 months in prison, followed by two

years of probation.2 The court also ordered Appellant “to have no contact of

any kind with the victim … or the victim’s family.”          N.T., 3/14/19, at 5

(emphasis added). Appellant’s plea counsel, Jeffrey Yelen, Esquire (Attorney

Yelen or trial counsel), did not object to this provision.

        This Court explained the victim testified at sentencing that,

        when assaulted and strangled [by Appellant], [Appellant] placed
        a bag over her head and attempted to suffocate her. She
        related that prior to passing out, “I said, God, forgive me for my
        sins. I really thought I was going to die.” She stated this occurred
        in the presence of her four-year old son[,] and she described the
        disturbing after-effects of the crime on them. She also noted that
        two years later, they both remain in counseling as a result of the
        crime.

Commonwealth v. Glenn, 224 A.3d 750 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished

memorandum at 7) (emphasis added) (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/19,

at 7 (citations and emphasis omitted)); see also N.T. (sentencing), 3/14/19,

____________________________________________

1 Appellant and the victim are the parents of three minor children. See N.T.
(PCRA Hearing), 11/6/20, at 5.

2   The sentence was at the high end of the guidelines’ standard range.

                                           -2-
J-S41021-22

at 4.3    Trial counsel did not object to the victim’s testimony that she was

suffocated.

         Appellant filed an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration of sentence,

as well as a direct appeal challenging the trial court’s imposition of an allegedly

excessive and improper sentence. We affirmed the judgment of sentence on

November 7, 2019. See id.4 Appellant did not seek allowance of appeal with

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

         The PCRA court detailed the procedural history that followed:

                On May 15, 2020, [Appellant] filed a document entitled
         “Supplement Reasons in Support of [Appellant’s] Initial Post-
         Conviction Collateral Claims.” Therein, [Appellant] represents he
         filed a “PCRA motion” on “4/1/2020”; however, apparently the
         document was [neither] filed nor served upon [the PCRA court,]
         as it is not reflected in the docket entries in this case.

               Upon receipt of the May 15, 2020, document – which [the
         PCRA court] treated as a [timely] PCRA application – [the PCRA
         c]ourt entered an order dated June 4, 2020, appointing [Attorney
         Yelen as] PCRA counsel [for the indigent Appellant]. [See, e.g.,
         Commonwealth v. Jackson, 30 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super.
         2011) (stating, “any petition filed after the judgment of sentence
____________________________________________

3 Pertinently, the victim’s suffocation testimony differed slightly from the
factual basis for Appellant’s plea detailed at the guilty plea hearing. See N.T.
(guilty plea hearing), 1/23/19, at 5 (prosecutor summarizing facts, including
“[Appellant] wrapped his hands around [the victim’s] neck” and “she
did indeed pass out and lose consciousness.” (emphasis added)); cf. N.T.,
3/14/19, at 4 (victim testifying that Appellant used a plastic bag).

4 The trial court appointed Attorney Kelly to represent Appellant on direct
appeal. Attorney Kelly subsequently filed with this Court a brief and petition
to withdraw, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We
granted the petition after concluding that Attorney Kelly complied with Anders
and Appellant failed to raise any non-frivolous issues. Glenn, 224 A.3d 750
(unpublished memorandum at 3-5, 8).

                                           -3-
J-S41021-22

       becomes final will be treated as a PCRA petition.” (citation
       omitted)); Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C) (mandating appointment of
       counsel for indigent, first-time PCRA petitioners).] On June 22,
       2020, [Appellant filed a pro se] memorandum of law in support of
       the PCRA [petition]….1 On August 18, 2020, a supplemental PCRA
       application was filed by [Attorney Yelen, along] with a request for
       [an evidentiary] hearing.

            1 “Our cases have consistently stated that no defendant
            has a constitutional right to hybrid representation, either
            at trial or on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Staton, 184
            A.3d 949, 957-58 (Pa. 2018) (internal quotes/citations
            omitted).

             The PCRA hearing was convened on November 6, 2020
       [(PCRA hearing); Appellant was the only witness]. [T]hereafter,
       on March 16, 2022, an order [was] issued granting, in part, the
       PCRA application. More specifically, [the PCRA court] directed that
       [Appellant’s] sentencing order … was not to be interpreted to
       preclude his contact with his minor children – under and subject
       to any order of the Family Division of the Court of Common Pleas
       as it may relate to then[-]pending Children and Youth cases
       and/or custody and/or protection from abuse proceedings. All
       additional relief sought in the PCRA application was denied and
       dismissed.

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/7/22, at 1-2 (footnote in original).

       This timely appeal followed, and Counsel has complied with the PCRA

court’s directive to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. Counsel filed

a Turner/Finley no-merit brief in this Court on August 24, 2022, identifying

the issues Appellant wished to raise and explaining why they are frivolous.5

On September 14, 2022, Appellant filed from prison a pro se “Motion for

____________________________________________

5 The PCRA court granted Attorney Yelen permission to withdraw as
Appellant’s counsel on April 19, 2022, and once again appointed Attorney
Kelley, who represented Appellant in the PCRA proceedings.

                                           -4-
J-S41021-22

Extension” with this Court. Appellant requested an extension of time to file a

response to Counsel’s Turner/Finley brief, claiming Counsel was ineffective

and “neglected to notify [Appellant] of his appointment to represent

[Appellant] prior to filing a no merit Turner[/]Finley Brief….”          Motion,

9/14/22, at 2 (unnumbered); see also id. (stating “Appellant respectfully

asks to proceed pro se….”).

      On September 16, 2022, this Court directed Counsel to (1) remedy his

failure to file a petition to withdraw as counsel; and (2) attach to his

incomplete Turner/Finley brief a letter informing Appellant of his right to

proceed pro se or with the assistance of retained counsel if Counsel is

permitted to withdraw. Counsel complied with our directive four days later.

      On September 27, 2022, this Court granted Appellant’s Motion for

Extension, in part, allowing him until November 7, 2022, to “file a pro se brief,

which will be considered by this Court along with [C]ounsel’s brief….” Order,

9/27/22. We denied Appellant’s request to proceed pro se. Id. Appellant

filed a pro se, handwritten brief in this Court on November 29, 2022, which

was 22 days late.

      Before addressing Appellant’s claims, we address the timeliness of his

pro se brief. Appellant dated his brief November 3, 2022, and attached prison

cash slips bearing the same date. Pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, a

prisoner’s pro se filing “is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison

authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 266 A.3d 1128, 1132

                                      -5-
J-S41021-22

n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted)); Pa.R.A.P. 121(f) (same); see also

Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (explaining types

of evidence a prisoner can present under prisoner mailbox rule, including cash

slips, postal forms, or “any reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that the

prisoner deposits the [filing] with the prison authorities.”).         Accordingly,

Appellant timely filed his pro se brief.

       Counsel’s Turner/Finley brief identifies two issues Appellant wishes to

raise on appeal:

       1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to
          testimony by the victim with regard to the Appellant placing a
          bag over her head when it was not part of the guilty plea
          colloquy[?]

       2. Whether the guilty plea colloquy was deficient by failing to
          properly set forth the elements of the offense[?]

Turner/Finley Brief at 1.6

       In his pro se brief, Appellant presents four issues:

       I.   Whether the PCRA court erred in denying/dismissing the
            Appellant[’s] claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing
            to object to testimony by the victim alleging the Appellant
            attempted to suffocate her to death with a plastic bag in front
            of her son, when it was not part of the guilty plea colloquy[?]

       II. Whether the PCRA court erred in dismissing the Appellant[’s]
           claim that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness unlawfully induced an
           unknowing/involuntary guilty plea[?]

____________________________________________

6The Commonwealth has advised this Court it would not file a brief, “agrees
with Appellant’s [C]ounsel that the issues presented are frivolous,” and relies
upon the reasoning advanced in the PCRA court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Correspondence, 9/23/22.

                                           -6-
J-S41021-22

       III. Whether governmental obstruction adversely affected the
            Appellant[’s] constitutional right to a full and fair opportunity
            to litigate his constitutional claims on PCRA review[?]

       IV. Whether trial, appellate and PCRA counsel’s stewardship [was]
           ineffective as to constitute a violation of the Appellant[’s]
           constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel[?]

Appellant’s pro se Brief at 1-2 (some capitalization modified).

       Appellant’s pro se issues I and II largely overlap with the two issues in

Counsel’s Turner/Finley brief; Counsel preserved these two issues in

Appellant’s court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement filed on May 13, 2022.7

Appellant’s pro se issues III and IV are not contained in the Rule 1925(b)

statement. We have emphasized that Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial component

of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify and focus

on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.”        Commonwealth v.

Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)

(issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). “[A]ny issue not raised

in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for appellate review.”

Bonnett, 239 A.3d at 106 (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306,

309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed

waived.”)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the

Statement … are waived.”).          Therefore, Appellant waived his pro se issues

____________________________________________

7The two issues are phrased identically in Counsel’s brief and the Rule 1925(b)
statement. Turner/Finley Brief at 1; Rule 1925(b) Statement, 5/13/22.

                                           -7-
J-S41021-22

numbered III and IV.8         See id.; see also Staton, 184 A.3d at 957 (“no

defendant has a constitutional right to hybrid representation”).

       We next address whether Counsel has satisfied the requirements of

Turner/Finley in petitioning to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219

A.3d 689, 691 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“When presented with a brief pursuant

to Turner/Finley, we first determine whether the brief meets the procedural

requirements of Turner/Finley.”). This Court has explained:

       A Turner/Finley brief must: (1) detail the nature and extent of
       counsel’s review of the case; (2) list each issue the petitioner
       wishes to have reviewed; and (3) explain counsel’s reasoning for
       concluding that the petitioner’s issues are meritless.
       Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875, 876 n.1 (Pa. 2009)
       [(overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Bradley,
       261 A.3d 381, 401 (Pa. 2021) (“we now … abandon Pitts’s …
       approach as the sole procedure for challenging PCRA counsel’s
       effectiveness”) (italics added))]. Counsel must also send a copy
       of the brief to the petitioner, along with a copy of the petition to
       withdraw, and inform the petitioner of the right to proceed pro se
       or to retain new counsel. [Commonwealth v.] Wrecks, 931
       A.2d [717,] 721 [(Pa. Super. 2007)]. If the brief meets these
       requirements, we then conduct an independent review of the
       petitioner’s issues. Commonwealth v. Muzzy, 141 A.3d 509,
       511 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Knecht, 219 A.3d at 691 (citations modified). Further, this Court has stated

that substantial compliance with the requirements to withdraw as counsel will

satisfy the Turner/Finley criteria.            Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836

A.2d 940, 947 (Pa. Super. 2003).

____________________________________________

8 As we discuss below, Appellant preserved one claim in connection with his
pro se issue IV.

                                           -8-
J-S41021-22

      Our review discloses that Counsel has substantially complied with the

above requirements. In the Turner/Finley brief, Counsel (1) set forth the

issues Appellant wants this Court to review, (2) stated he has conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, (3) determined there are no non-

frivolous arguments to support Appellant’s claims, and (4) explained why

Appellant’s claims lack merit. See Turner/Finley Brief at 1, 6-10. Counsel,

however, failed to initially inform Appellant of Counsel’s intention to request

permission to withdraw and Appellant’s rights in lieu of representation, in

violation of Commonwealth v. Friend, 896 A.2d 607, 614 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(requiring counsel seeking to withdraw in collateral proceedings to advise a

PCRA petitioner of his desire to withdraw and petitioner’s right to proceed pro

se or with the assistance of privately retained counsel if counsel’s petition to

withdraw is granted); see also Wrecks, supra (same). As explained above,

Counsel complied with this Court’s September 16, 2022, order directing him

to notify Appellant of his rights under Friend. As Counsel has sufficiently

complied with the Turner/Finley requirements, we proceed to independently

review Appellant’s claims.

      Our standard of review is limited to “whether the PCRA court’s findings

of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are

free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Small, 238 A.3d 1267, 1280 (Pa.

2020).

                                     -9-
J-S41021-22

      Appellant first argues the PCRA court improperly failed to credit his

ineffectiveness claim based on trial counsel’s failure to object to the victim’s

testimony at sentencing. See Turner/Finley Brief at 6-8; Appellant’s pro se

Brief at 7-9.    Appellant stresses that the victim’s testimony regarding

Appellant’s use of a plastic bag to suffocate her (see N.T., 3/14/19, at 4)

varied from the factual basis of Appellant’s guilty plea (namely, placing his

hands around the victim’s neck). See Turner/Finley Brief at 6; Appellant’s

pro se Brief at 7. According to Appellant, “the high standard range sentence

[he received] is an inextricable result of” the victim’s suffocation testimony.

Appellant’s pro se Brief at 8-9.

      We review ineffectiveness claims under the following standard:

      [A] PCRA petitioner will be granted relief only when he proves, by
      a preponderance of the evidence, that his conviction or sentence
      resulted from the 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. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii).
      Counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the
      PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance
      was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him. … [T]o
      prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must show that: (1) his
      underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) counsel had no
      reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and (3) the petitioner
      suffered actual prejudice as a result [(hereinafter, prejudice
      prong”)]. If a petitioner fails to prove any of these prongs, his
      claim fails.      Generally, counsel’s assistance is deemed
      constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course of conduct
      that had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s
      interests. Where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, a
      finding that a chosen strategy lacked a reasonable basis is not
      warranted unless it can be concluded that an alternative not
      chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than
      the course actually pursued. To demonstrate prejudice, the

                                     - 10 -
J-S41021-22

       petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that,
       but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
       proceedings would have been different. A reasonable probability
       is a probability that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the
       outcome of the proceeding.

Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (citations, quotation

marks, and brackets omitted).

       The    PCRA     court   rejected        Appellant’s   claim   of   trial   counsel’s

ineffectiveness, stating that

       [Appellant] was sentenced within the standard range only
       for the very crime to which he entered a guilty plea – aggravated
       assault. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702[](a)(1). Notably, the parties did not
       agree to a specific sentence, nor place limits on the
       parameters of the victim’s impact statement. … The failure
       of [trial] counsel to object to the victim impact statement
       clearly did not result in prejudice to [Appellant]. [Appellant]
       has not established otherwise. There is no reasonable probability
       that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different
       had [trial] counsel advanced an objection to the victim impact
       statement based upon the record before this [c]ourt.

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/7/22, at 7-8 (emphasis added; footnotes and some

citations omitted).

       The record supports the PCRA court’s reasoning, and we agree with its

conclusion that Appellant failed to meet the prejudice prong of the

ineffectiveness test.     See id.     Appellant offers no evidence to support his

vague claim9 that the outcome of sentencing would have been different had

trial counsel objected to the victim’s testimony. On direct appeal, this Court

____________________________________________

9“This Court will not act as counsel … [for] an appellant.” Commonwealth
v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).

                                          - 11 -
J-S41021-22

emphasized that Appellant received a standard-range sentence, and

rejected Appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Glenn,   224    A.3d   750   (unpublished       memorandum    at   6,    8)   (citing

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating

that “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines,

Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing

Code.”)); see also Glenn, 224 A.3d 750 (unpublished memorandum at 7)

(holding, “the record reflects that the trial court considered the sentencing

guidelines, [Appellant’s] criminal record, protection of the public, the gravity

of [Appellant’s] offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and

the community, and [Appellant’s] rehabilitative needs.”).               Accordingly,

Appellant’s first issue lacks merit.

      Appellant next claims the PCRA court erred with regard to his

ineffectiveness claim based on trial counsel’s failure to object to the guilty plea

colloquy. See Turner/Finley Brief at 9-10; Appellant’s pro se Brief at 9-11.

Counsel advances Appellant’s claim “that the guilty plea colloquy was deficient

by failing to properly set forth the elements of the offense at the guilty plea

hearing.” Turner/Finley Brief at 9. In his pro se brief, Appellant references

the victim’s testimony at sentencing and argues it inappropriately differed

from the factual basis of Appellant’s guilty plea. Appellant’s pro se Brief at 10

(claiming he would have “refuse[d] to plead guilty to claims alleging he

strangled the victim … and attempted to suffocate her with a plastic bag,”

                                       - 12 -
J-S41021-22

which    Appellant   communicated     to   trial   counsel.   (some   capitalization

modified)). Appellant “contends that absent trial counsel’s erroneous advice

… [Appellant] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going

to trial.” Id. at 11 (some capitalization modified)).

        It is settled that 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. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation

omitted). “Where the defendant enters his plea on the advice of counsel, the

voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice was within the

range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Id. With

respect to the prejudice prong of the ineffectiveness test, a defendant who

entered a guilty plea must demonstrate “it is reasonably probable that, but

for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone

to trial.” Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365, 369-70 (Pa. Super.

2006) (citation omitted).

        The following exchange occurred at the plea hearing with respect to the

factual basis for the plea:

        [Prosecutor]: … On February 10, 2017, … [Appellant] did get into
        an altercation with the victim…. At that time, the altercation
        became physical [and Appellant] wrapped his hands around her
        neck attempting to cut off the circulation to her brain. During that
        strangulation, she did indeed pass out and lose consciousness.

                                       - 13 -
J-S41021-22

        THE COURT: [Appellant,] with respect to count 3 in the plea
        agreement, [i.e., aggravated assault,] are those the facts that you
        are pleading guilty to?

        [Appellant]: Yes.

        THE COURT: Okay. After discussing this matter with your lawyers,
        [do] you agree that there is a factual basis for your guilty plea to
        that count?

        Appellant: Yes.

N.T., 1/23/19, at 5-6.

        At the PCRA hearing, Attorney Yelen questioned Appellant about the

victim’s testimony at sentencing and the factual basis of Appellant’s guilty

plea:

        Q. After the sentencing was done and the case was over, did you
        have any further contacts with your attorneys about the concept
        of why [the victim] mentioned the bag over her head [at
        sentencing]?

        A. No, I did not.

        Q. All right. If the [guilty] plea colloquy included you having to
        admit that you put a bag over [the victim’s] head in an attempt
        to suffocate her, would you have pled guilty?

        A. Unequivocally, no, I would not have.

N.T., 11/6/20, at 9.

        The PCRA court addressed this claim as follows:

        We recognize a valid plea colloquy must delve into six areas, to
        include the nature of the charges. Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(A)(2);
        Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 107 (Pa. Super.
        2005) [(en banc)]. However, the record demonstrates that, in
        addition to the oral colloquy, [Appellant] completed the written
        guilty plea colloquy that consisted of forty-five (45) specific
        questions answered and [was] endorsed by [Appellant,] which is

                                       - 14 -
J-S41021-22

      a part of the record in this case. See N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing,
      01/23/2019, at p. 4. Questions number 14 and 15 [in the
      written     plea     colloquy]     specifically   demonstrate
      [Appellant’s] acknowledgment of the criminal conduct he
      must engage in to be guilty of the crime to which he pled
      guilty. Nothing more was required. Importantly, “nothing in
      [Rule 590] precludes the supplementation of the oral colloquy by
      a written colloquy that is read, completed, and signed by the
      defendant and made a part of the plea proceedings.”
      [Commonwealth v.] Bedell, 954 A.2d [at] 1212-13 [(Pa. Super.
      2008) (citation omitted).]

PCRA Court Opinion, 6/7/22, at 8 (emphasis added; some citations modified).

      The record and law support the PCRA court’s analysis.          Contrary to

Appellant’s claim, the victim’s testimony in question was introduced for the

first time at sentencing, and was not part of the factual basis for Appellant’s

guilty plea.   Appellant’s plea was lawful.     Because there is no merit to

Appellant’s underlying claim, the PCRA court did not err in rejecting the claim

of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. See Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d

435, 445 (Pa. 2015) (“counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise

a meritless claim.” (citation omitted)).

      Finally, we note that Appellant, with respect to his pro se issue IV, claims

for the first time that Attorney Yelen rendered ineffective assistance, invoking

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2021) (holding “a PCRA

petitioner may, after a PCRA court denies relief, and after obtaining new

counsel or acting pro se, raise claims of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness at the

first opportunity to do so, even if on appeal.”). See Appellant’s pro se Brief

at 16-18.      Appellant challenges Attorney Yelen’s purported “failure to

                                     - 15 -
J-S41021-22

reference trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in relation to the guilty plea, and the

meritorious issue of prosecutorial misconduct by breaching the guilty plea….”

Id. at 16 (some capitalization modified)); see also id. at 17 (“Attorney

Yelen[] failed to su[bpoe]na trial counsel to el[]icit relevant testimony to

support the Appellant[’s] constitutional claims of trial counsel’s unlawful

inducement of the Appellant to plead guilty….” (some capitalization

modified)).

      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently expanded on Bradley,

stating:

      We recognized that the structure of appeal and collateral review
      “places great importance on the competency of initial PCRA
      counsel,” and reasoned that “it is essential that a petitioner
      possess a meaningful method by which to realize his right to
      effective PCRA counsel.” Bradley, 261 A.3d at 401. We stated
      that “this approach best recognizes a petitioner’s right to effective
      PCRA counsel while advancing equally legitimate concerns that
      criminal matters be efficiently and timely concluded.” Id. at 405.
      We further explained:

           In some instances, the record before the appellate court
           will be sufficient to allow for disposition of any newly-
           raised ineffectiveness claims.       Commonwealth v.
           Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 577 (Pa. 2013). However, in
           other cases, the appellate court may need to remand to
           the PCRA court for further development of the record and
           for the PCRA court to consider such claims as an initial
           matter. Consistent with our prior case law, to advance a
           request for remand, a petition would be required to
           provide more than mere “boilerplate assertions of PCRA
           counsel's ineffectiveness,” Commonwealth v. Hall, 872
           A.2d 1177, 1182 (Pa. 2005); however, where there are
           “material facts at issue concerning claims challenging
           counsel’s stewardship and relief is not plainly unavailable
           as a matter of law, the remand should be afforded[.]”

                                     - 16 -
J-S41021-22

            Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726, 740 n.2 (Pa.
            2002) (Saylor, J., concurring).

      Id. at 402. We also stated that [Pa.R.A.P.] 302(a), which provides
      that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot
      be raised for the first time on appeal,” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), “does not
      pertain to these scenarios.” Id. at 405.

Commonwealth v. Parrish, 273 A.3d 989, 1002 (Pa. 2022) (some brackets

omitted; citations modified).

      Appellant properly raises his claim of Attorney Yelen’s ineffectiveness in

his appellate brief.   Bradley, 261 A.3d at 401.           However, as we have

concluded    that   Appellant’s   guilty   plea   was   lawful,   and   discern   no

ineffectiveness by trial counsel, Appellant’s claim of Attorney Yelen’s

ineffectiveness does not merit relief. See Treiber, 121 A.3d at 445.

      Based on the foregoing, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw from

representation and affirm the PCRA court’s order disposing of Appellant’s first

PCRA petition.

      Petition to withdraw granted. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/03/2023

                                      - 17 -