J-S56007-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FRANCIS ORDEAN REESE
Appellant No. 657 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order October 18, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0000313-1996
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 29, 2014
Appellant, Francis Ordean Reese, appeals pro se from the order
entered by the Honorable John D. Kuhn, Court of Common Pleas of Adams
County, that dismissed Ordean’s serial petition for relief pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). After careful review, we affirm.
Given our disposition of this appeal, a detailed factual and procedural
history is unnecessary. Reese was convicted of multiple crimes arising from
the rape of a seventeen year-old victim. On March 3, 1998, the trial court
sentenced Reese to a term of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years, and after a
remand from this Court, re-sentenced him on August 3, 1999, to a term of
imprisonment of 8 to 20 years. Reese subsequently filed his first petition
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S56007-14
pursuant to the PCRA, the denial of which was affirmed by this Court on April
23, 2004.
Subsequently, Reese filed a pro se motion for post-conviction DNA
testing. Reese continued to file other requests for post-conviction relief
while this motion was pending. Ultimately, the DNA testing requested by
Reese was performed, with the result being that no blood or semen was
found on the samples. Reese then filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss Based on
Newly Discovered Evidence. The PCRA court denied all of Reese’s pending
requests and noted that Reese’s request for DNA testing had been de facto
granted. Reese filed an appeal from this order, and the trial court ordered
Reese to file a statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b). This Court
affirmed based on Reese’s failure to file a 1925(b) statement. However, the
PCRA court, upon agreement of the parties, subsequently found that Reese
had never received its order directing the filing of the 1925(b) statement,
and reinstated Reese’s appellate rights. Reese then filed the appeal
currently before us.
On appeal, Reese raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the Commonwealth PCRA court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s PCRA is supported by the record and free from
legal error, where Appellant put forth evidence that an expert
would have answered questions, as a medical expert,
pertaining to any tangible evidence found or trauma to the
alleged affected area of the victim in question?
B. Whether the Commonwealth PCRA Court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s PCRA is supported and free from legal error, in
denying further DNA testing that would have excluded
Appellant from the alleged criminal acts in question?
-2-
J-S56007-14
C. Whether the Commonwealth PCRA court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim is free from legal
error and supported by the record, where Appellant put forth
evidence that due to counsel’s lack of representation did
cause a substantial negative outcome throughout his court
proceedings?
D. Whether the Commonwealth PCRA court denied Appellant his
procedural due process, substantive due process, by
misapplying procedural case law and standards, is free from
legal error and supported by the record?
E. Whether the Commonwealth court continuously denied
Appellant the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is
supported by the record and free from legal error, where
Appellant put forth evidence where the Commonwealth courts
have and still is denying Appellant his right from Double
Jeopardy violations as he was convicted of a lesser included
offense, which bars further prosecutions on remaining
indictments?
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Our standard of review regarding a PCRA court's denial of a petition for
post-conviction relief is well settled. We examine whether the determination
of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal
error. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 995 A.2d 1143, 1149 (Pa. 2010).
The PCRA court's findings will not be disturbed unless there is no support for
the findings in the certified record. See id. Our scope of review is limited to
the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. See
Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2010).
After review of the briefs of the parties, the voluminous record, and
Judge Kuhn’s comprehensive and thorough opinion dated October 18, 2012,
we affirm the order based upon Judge Kuhn’s opinion.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-3-
J-S56007-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/29/2014
-4-
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM
Circulated 10/16/2014 11:36 AM