J-S14038-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
TYRONE J. GRAHAM, :
:
Appellant : No. 2395 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on August 15, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0610381-2006
BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 09, 2015
Tyrone J. Graham (“Graham”) appeals from the Order dismissing his
Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).1 We
affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in
its Opinion, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See PCRA Court
Opinion, 9/16/14, at 1-4.2
On appeal, Graham raises the following issue for our review: “Is
[Graham] entitled to PCRA relief in the form of the grant of leave to
withdraw his guilty plea or new trial since [plea] counsel was ineffective for
1
See 42 Pa.S.C.A. §§ 9541-9546.
2
Graham timely filed a Notice of Appeal and a Concise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal.
J-S14038-15
failing to file and litigate a motion to withdraw guilty plea?” Brief for
Appellant at 4.
Graham contends that he asked his plea counsel to file a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea, and that his plea counsel failed to comply with this
request. Id. at 15-16. Graham asserts that he filed, pro se, a post-
sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was erroneously
docketed as a Notice of Appeal.3 Id. at 16. Graham claims that his guilty
plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent. Id. at 20. Graham contends
that, because he alleged in his pro se Notice of Appeal that he had
irreconcilable differences with plea counsel, and that plea counsel was
ineffective, plea counsel should have filed a motion to withdraw Graham’s
guilty plea. Id. Graham asserts that his statements at the time he entered
his guilty plea “clearly indicate[d] he that he [was] pleading guilty because
there was [] inadequate time to consult with [plea] counsel[:] to prepare for
trial[;]” and “with regard to the guilty plea.” Id. at 21, 22. Graham claims
that he “had no intention to plead guilty[,] and the Commonwealth informed
the trial court of this fact.” Id. at 22. Graham contends that his
representations to the trial court at the time of his plea “appear[] to indicate
that he [was] pleading guilty because he had no choice, as opposed to
because he was guilty of the crimes charged.” Id. at 23.
3
Our review of the record discloses that this one-page document is clearly
entitled “Notice of Appeal.” See Notice of Appeal, 7/16/07.
-2-
J-S14038-15
In its Opinion, the PCRA court addressed Graham’s claim, set forth the
relevant law, and concluded that his claim lacks merit. See PCRA Court
Opinion, 9/16/14, at 4-8. We agree with the sound reasoning of the PCRA
court, and affirm on this basis. See id.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/9/2015
-3-