Court Opinion

ID: 9382453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 18:07:43.129381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.470063
License: Public Domain

J-S44021-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    TODD ANDREW RICHARDSON                     :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1035 MDA 2022

               Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 29, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-06-CR-0001435-2020

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: MARCH 27, 2023

        Todd Andrew Richardson appeals from the order denying his Post

Conviction Relief Act petition, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Richardson argues

the trial court erred in concluding his counsel was not ineffective for failing to

file a direct appeal. We affirm.

        In April 2021, a jury convicted Richardson of aggravated assault and

simple assault, and the trial court found him guilty of the summary offense of

harassment.1 The charges related to offenses committed against Richardson’s

girlfriend, with whom he lived. The trial court sentenced Richardson to five

and one half to 15 years’ imprisonment for the aggravated assault conviction

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), and 2709(a)(1), respectively.
J-S44021-22

and found the simple assault and harassment convictions merged for

sentencing purposes.

      Richardson filed a post-sentence motion challenging the sufficiency and

weight of the evidence and his sentence. Two days later, the trial court denied

the motion. No direct appeal was filed.

      In September 2021, Richardson filed a pro se PCRA petition claiming his

trial counsel was ineffective because he had requested that counsel file a direct

appeal, and counsel failed to do so. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who

filed an amended petition, raising a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to file a direct appeal.

      At an evidentiary hearing, Richardson testified that after the court

imposed the sentence, he asked trial counsel to file a direct appeal. He said

that ten or 11 days after the sentencing hearing, he had a conversation with

trial counsel, and counsel told him the appeal had been denied. Because

counsel told him the appeal had been denied, he “just let it go because [he]

thought – [he] let it go.” N.T., Apr. 28, 2022, at 9. He stated he never spoke

to counsel again following this conversation. Id. at 10, 12-13.

      Trial counsel testified that after the court sentenced Richardson, he told

Richardson that he would file a post-sentence motion, which he filed and the

court denied. Trial counsel stated that he had a video conference with

Richardson in May 2021, which was within the appeal period. Id. at 15. He

said he informed Richardson that the court had denied the post-sentence

motion and asked whether Richardson wanted to file an appeal. Id. at 16.

                                      -2-
J-S44021-22

Richardson responded by referring to medical record evidence he believed

existed, and that he thought would prove his innocence. Id. Counsel informed

Richardson neither he nor the Commonwealth had such evidence. Id. Counsel

again asked Richardson whether he would like counsel to file an appeal, and

Richardson said he did not want counsel to file one. Id. at 16-18.

      Counsel testified that he asked three separate times during the

conversation whether Richardson wanted to appeal, and Richardson said no

each time. Counsel testified that        after the third query, Richardson

“emphatically stated he did not want to appeal” and “not so gently hung up

the receiver on the other end.” Id. at 16, 20. Richardson did not contact

counsel again after the conference call. Id. at 17-18, 21. Because he was

surprised Richardson did not wish to file an appeal, trial counsel documented

Richardson’s responses in his notes in the file. Id. at 17.

      Following the hearing, the trial court made the following findings of fact:

         1. On April 20, 2021, [Richardson] was sentenced pursuant
         to conviction by a jury on April 19.

         2. After the imposition of sentence, [Richardson] requested
         that counsel appeal.

         3. Counsel informed [Richardson] at that time that he would
         be filing a post sentence motion on his behalf.

         4. The post sentence motion was filed on April 27, 2021,
         within the ten-day time limit for the filing of such motions.

         5. The post sentence motion raised issues relating to the
         weight of the evidence and the length of the sentence
         imposed.

                                     ***

                                      -3-
J-S44021-22

       8. The post sentence motion was denied on April 28, 2021.

       9. After denial of the post sentence motion, Trial Counsel
       scheduled a video conference with [Richardson] to be held
       on May 18, 2021.

       10. The conference was scheduled to confer with
       [Richardson] regarding any possible appeal and allowed
       sufficient time for the perfection of an appeal should
       [Richardson] request one.

       11. At the video conference of May 18, 2021, Trial Counsel
       informed [Richardson] that the post sentence motion filed
       on his behalf had been denied by the Court.

       12. In response to Trial Counsel’s request as to whether
       [Richardson] wished to file an appeal, [Richardson]
       responded in the negative.

       13. After that response, [Richardson] then queried Trial
       Counsel concerning medical evidence with respect to the
       victim which he believed would establish his innocence.

       14. Trial Counsel informed [Richardson] that he was in
       possession of no such evidence, and related that the District
       Attorney did not possess any such evidence either.

       15. After Trial Counsel’s statement regarding the alleged
       medical evidence, [Richardson] again stated that he did not
       wish to appeal.

       16. Trial Counsel, knowing that [Richardson] was
       dissatisfied with the results of his trial, asked [Richardson]
       a third time if he wished to appeal.

       17. In response to the third query, [Richardson]
       emphatically repeated that he did not wish to appeal, hung
       up the receiver, and left the video conference room.

       18. Early on the morning of May 19, 2021, the day following
       the video conference, Trial Counsel made detailed notes of
       his conversation with [Richardson] during the video
       conference.

       19. After the conference of May 18, 2021, Trial Counsel
       never heard from [Richardson] again.

                                   -4-
J-S44021-22

         20. [Richardson] displayed no signs of confusion during the
         video conference.

Trial Court Opinion, Sept. 6, 2022, at 5-6 (“PCRA Opinion”). The PCRA court

concluded Richardson failed to demonstrate counsel was ineffective and

denied the petition. Richardson filed a timely notice of appeal.

      Richardson raises the following issue: “Whether the PCRA Court erred

and abused its discretion in denying the request to reinstate [Richardson’s]

direct appeal rights where it is apparent from the record that [Richardson]

wished to contest his conviction?” Richardson’s Br. at 5.

      Richardson acknowledges counsel consulted with him about an appeal,

and the PCRA court found as a fact that he indicated he did not want to file an

appeal, but claims the consultation was not adequate. He argues that even

where a defendant does not ask counsel to file an appeal, counsel has a duty

to adequately consult with a defendant where there is reason to think a

defendant would want to appeal. He claims counsel “had reason to believe

that a rational defendant would want to appeal because there are nonfrivolous

grounds for appeal and because [Richardson], by asking trial counsel about

presenting evidence on appeal, reasonably demonstrated that he was

interested in continuing to litigate his case.” Richardson’s Br. at 12. Richardson

argues he testified that at the telephone conference he thought the appeal

had already been denied and the consultation described by counsel was not

adequate as to the advantages and disadvantages of an appeal.

      Our standard of review of an order denying PCRA relief is limited to

determining “whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by

                                      -5-
J-S44021-22

evidence of record and whether it is free of legal error.” Commonwealth v.

Hart, 199 A.3d 475, 481 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

      To establish a claim that counsel was ineffective, a petitioner must plead

and prove all of the following: “1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; 2)

no reasonable basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and 3)

petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error such that there is a

reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been

different absent such error.” Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216, 1221

(Pa. 2009) (citation omitted). Where a petitioner raises a claim that counsel

is ineffective for failing to file an appeal, the petitioner must prove he

requested that counsel file an appeal and counsel disregarded the request.

Commonwealth v. Mojica, 242 A.3d 949, 955 (Pa.Super. 2020). If counsel

failed to file the requested appeal, counsel will be found to be per se

ineffective, such that the petitioner need not prove prejudice. Id.

      A petitioner may also establish counsel was ineffective for failing to file

an appeal if he establishes counsel failed to consult with him. To establish

counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with a defendant about an appeal,

the petitioner must establish that a duty to consult arose because counsel had

reason to believe either “(1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal

(for example because there are non-frivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that

this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was

interested in appealing.” Commonwealth v. McDermitt, 66 A.3d 810, 815

(Pa.Super. 2013). If a duty to consult arises, counsel must “adequately consult

                                      -6-
J-S44021-22

with the defendant as to the advantages and disadvantages of an appeal.” Id.

Further, when alleging counsel failed to consult regarding an appeal, a

petitioner must establish prejudice. Commonwealth v. Touw, 781 A.2d

1250, 1254 (Pa.Super. 2001).

      Here, the PCRA court concluded Richardson failed to carry his burden to

prove that counsel failed to file an appeal requested by Richardson. PCRA

Opinion at 7. It concluded that “it is abundantly clear that Trial Counsel did all

that could reasonably be asked of him in ascertaining whether [Richardson]

wished to proceed with an appeal.” Id. It found Richardson in May 2021 chose

not to file an appeal, “despite multiple inquiries by Trial Counsel as to

[Richardson’s] wishes.” Id. The PCRA court further found counsel “consulted

with [Richardson] regarding a possible appeal, and [Richardson] repeatedly

denied Trial Counsel’s queries as to whether he wished to file such an appeal.”

Id. at 8. The court stated it was “unconvinced” that counsel had to “expend

further   efforts   to   determine   whether   [Richardson]   was   confused   or

misunderstood the discussion,” reasoning that “[a]ny misunderstanding on

[Richardson’s] part regarding evidence or whether he was entitled to further

appeal would certainly be assuaged by Trial Counsel’s thrice-repeated, plain

request to [Richardson] as to whether he sought to take an appeal in his case.”

Id. It found Richardson “cannot now use his failure to heed Trial Counsel’s

advice to support a claim that Trial Counsel was ineffective in convincing him

to file such an appeal.” Id.

                                       -7-
J-S44021-22

      The record supports the PCRA court’s factual findings and it did not

commit legal error when it denied Richardson’s ineffectiveness claim. Trial

counsel met with Richardson to discuss whether Richardson wished to file an

appeal, and despite being asked repeatedly if he wanted to appeal, Richardson

declined. When Richardson mentioned exculpatory medical evidence, counsel

responded that he knew of no such evidence. Richardson did not inform

counsel of additional evidence, and when counsel again asked about an

appeal, Richardson said he did not want to appeal. Although Richardson states

counsel did not advise him about the advantages and disadvantages of an

appeal, he has not identified a particular piece of information that he claims

he lacked and the absence of which prejudiced him.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/27/2023

                                    -8-