J-S65039-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOSEPH WILLIAM ATWELL,
Appellant No. 960 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order March 14, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County
Criminal Division at No.: 284-2008-Criminal
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2015
Appellant, Joseph William Atwell, appeals from the order denying and
dismissing his petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post Conviction
Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546. Appellant claims ineffective
assistance of counsel. We affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.
A jury convicted Appellant of murder of the first degree, kidnapping,
conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license and possession of an
instrument of crime in connection with the shooting death of Norman
Domenech, related to Appellant’s drug operation. After the jury deadlocked
on the death penalty, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S65039-14
not less than forty-one years’ and not more than one hundred and four
years’ incarceration in a state correctional institution. This Court affirmed
judgment of sentence and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
Commonwealth v. Atwell, 34 A.3d 224 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished
memorandum), appeal denied, 37 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2012).
Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition on October 25, 2012. The PCRA
court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition. Notably, Appellant
alleged his trial counsel did not inform him of multiple plea offers, and
rejected a plea offer without consulting him. After a hearing, the court
denied the petition on March 14, 2014, in an extended order which included
its reasoning. Appellant timely appealed.1
In its May 6, 2014 opinion, the PCRA court fully and correctly sets
forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we
have no reason to restate them at length here.2
____________________________________________
1
Appellant also filed a statement of errors on April 25, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). The trial court filed a supplementary opinion on May 6, 2014. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
2
For ease of reference, we note that Appellant’s co-conspirator in this
murder, and the victim’s replacement in Appellant’s drug operation, was
Jesus Rosario Torres, the shooter. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced
into evidence a “White Resistance Manual.” The manual, found among
Appellant’s possessions, was a white supremacist tract which included
information on firearms and provided instructions on how to commit certain
crimes. Also at trial, Magaly Echevarria testified that she was the translator
for Rosario Torres and Appellant in the planning and commission of the
murder.
-2-
J-S65039-14
Appellant raises the following four issues for our review:
[1.] Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA
petition when his trial counsel rejected guilty plea offers from the
Commonwealth prior to and during Appellant’s trial without first
consulting Appellant?
[2.] Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA
petition when his trial counsel failed to advise Appellant of
certain plea offers prior to and during trial?
[3.] Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA
petition when his trial counsel failed to object to the
Commonwealth’s introduction into evidence of a “White
Resistance Manual,” allegedly belonging to Appellant, which had
little probative value, if any, and was highly prejudicial against
Appellant?
[4.] Did the PCRA court err in denying Appellant’s PCRA
petition when his trial counsel failed to call Magaly Echevarria’s
treating psychiatric doctors to testify at Appellant’s trial, despite
Ms. Echevarria being a key witness for the Commonwealth and
her questionable psychiatric history?
(Appellant’s Brief, at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the PCRA court, we
conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal.
The PCRA court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. (See
PCRA Court Opinion, 5/06/14, at 4-7) (finding: (1) the only credible
testimony concerning plea offers was from Appellant’s trial attorneys, who
testified that there was a single plea offer of fifteen to thirty years which
counsel presented to Appellant on multiple occasions, and Appellant
rejected; (2) Appellant presented no evidence to support his claim of
-3-
J-S65039-14
additional plea offers or unilateral rejection of them by counsel; (3) defense
counsel chose a reasonable strategy of having the White Resistance Manual
read at length to the jury to attempt to minimize the effect of specific
sections, after the trial court denied counsel’s original objection to its
admission of selected portions of the manual; and (4) the matter of Ms.
Echevarria’s competence to testify was previously litigated both at trial and
on direct appeal, and counsel raised appropriate motions throughout the
proceedings).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/13/2015
-4-
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM
Circulated 01/27/2015 09:54 AM