J-S52008-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN LEWIS GERHOLT, SR.,
Appellant No. 1622 WDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 29, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-05-CR-0000530-2008
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON, and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
Appellant, John Lewis Gerholt, Sr., appeals from the August 29, 2014
order denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546. After careful review, we affirm.
On August 21, 2012, facing charges of first-degree murder for the
killing of his twenty-four-year-old wife, Karen Gerholt, along with the
Commonwealth’s intent to seek the death penalty, Appellant pleaded no
contest to first-degree murder. The Commonwealth summarized the facts of
the crime at the plea hearing, as follows:
[THE COMMONWEALTH]: Yes, Your Honor. Sunday,
November 9th, 2008, Pennsylvania State Police received a
dispatch to the proximity of Walmart parking lot in Snake Spring
Township for the—to respond to a shooting. Trooper John Brown
of the Pennsylvania State Police was the first to arrive on scene.
Upon his arrival, he observed [Appellant] kneeling down over the
victim in this case, Karen M. Gerholt, age 24. The victim was
J-S52008-15
lying on her back in the northeast corner of the parking lot.
There was a gunshot—there was a shotgun laying beside the
victim, and she had what appeared to be injuries to her
abdomen, her back.
[Appellant] was taken into custody and returned to the
station. They also recovered three 12-gauge shotgun shells in
his right front pocket. At that point, Trooper Terry Summers of
the Pennsylvania State Police was assigned to conduct an
investigation into what happened that day.
During his investigation, we learned that between October
31st and November 7th, prior to this incident, [Appellant] told an
acquaintance, George Cramer, on at least three or four occasions
that he was going to, quote, kill that bitch, end quote, referring
to the victim. On the morning of the incident, on November 9th,
2008, [Appellant] asked several people who would testify at trial
where he could obtain a shotgun. At approximately 3:00 p.m.
on November 9th, 2008, [Appellant] arrived at the Bedford
Walmart store in his pickup truck. He purchased a hacksaw from
the store paying in cash and quickly took the hacksaw from the
store without a bag. [Appellant] took the hacksaw to his parked
truck where he stayed for approximately six minutes. He then
walked to a trashcan and threw away one bag containing what
appeared to be a long, thin item. Police believe that item to be
the barrel to that shotgun.
[Appellant] then moved his vehicle to several different
parking locations within the Walmart Plaza. After moving the
vehicle around for approximately 11 minutes, he walked across
the Walmart parking lot into the McDonald’s parking lot around
the Tractor Supply building and back near the McDonald’s
parking lot. [Appellant] then walked around this area. This walk
that I just described, Your Honor, took approximately 6 minutes.
[Appellant] then walked back to the Walmart parking lot
hiding behind a large storage container and peering around the
container to look at the McDonald’s store. After hiding behind
the storage container for approximately one minute, he returned
to his vehicle. He then parked his vehicle behind the storage
container in the Walmart parking lot, exited his vehicle, again
peered around the container toward the McDonald’s store, and
walked into the McDonald’s parking lot where he first came in
contact with the victim.
-2-
J-S52008-15
From the time [Appellant] first arrived in the Walmart
plaza, [Appellant] spent between 30 and 40 minutes walking
around the plaza, McDonald’s, and the Tractor Supply store.
When [Appellant] last approached the Walmart parking lot, he
was armed with a sawed-off, single-barrel, break-action shotgun
and several shotgun shells. Several witnesses, who would be
called to testify at trial, saw [Appellant’s] actions during the
shooting. And while some witnesses saw more than others, the
investigation determined that they will all testify to the same
general account.
[Appellant] approached the victim, Karen M. Gerholt, in
the McDonald’s parking lot. While the victim was running to her
vehicle in the parking lot, [Appellant] fired the shotgun at her.
[Appellant] then reloaded the shotgun and fired a second shot at
the victim at very close range. The victim sustained a fatal
gunshot wound which entered her back just below her left
shoulder blade. The victim bled profusely from her midsection
and mouth and was pronounced dead at the scene.
During the autopsy, at least 29 shotgun pellets were
removed from the victim’s body. And a plastic shotgun shell was
located between the victim’s heart and spine. Injuries from the
shotgun blast were present on the victim’s right lung, heart, left
lung, and liver. The nature of the entry wound indicated that the
shotgun was fired from a distance of three feet or less, and the
Commonwealth would present testimony to support that at trial.
Shortly after shooting the victim, [Appellant] called the
victim’s stepmother, Bess Lemin, with the victim’s cell phone,
and told Lemin that he accidentally shot the victim. Ms. Lemin
responded by saying that [Appellant] better not have injured the
victim to which [Appellant] replied, quote, fuck you, end quote.
When investigators from the Pennsylvania State Police
arrived, they found at least six live shotgun shells and one
shotgun shell wadding various places in the parking lot, one live
shotgun shell in [Appellant’s] pants pocket, and one spent
shotgun shell in the storm grate behind the victim’s vehicle.
Investigators found the sawed-off, single-barrel shotgun lying
beside [Appellant] with the action open and one spent shotgun
shell still inside. The barrel of the shotgun appeared to have
been recently cut. After investigators located [Appellant], he
-3-
J-S52008-15
told them that he accidentally shot the victim and he was only
there to scare her. The victim just—[Appellant] indicated the
weapon went off while he was holding it.
A search of [Appellant’s] vehicle revealed the following: A
hacksaw that appeared to be brand new but had areas on pant
[sic] worn off from the use; a greeting card addressed from
[Appellant] to the victim in this case, Karen Gerholt; a letter also
addressed to the victim in this case from [Appellant]; sawdust,
and metal shavings, and sandpaper, which appeared to have
been recently used. [Appellant] was Mirandized and chose not
to speak to the police. However, he did make several
statements during the process including the ones I’ve already
stated, Your Honor, that he said it was an accident, things of
that nature. In the police presence, when he observed a news
report regarding the incident shortly after being taken into
custody, [Appellant] stated that the victim’s family should know
what caused the incident because it was them, meaning the
victim’s family, that caused the accident.
An autopsy, Your Honor, was conducted at the Memorial
Medical Center in Conemaugh by Dr. Mo Zhicheng and Dr.
Manjunath Heggere, would indicate, Your Honor, that the victim
died from a single shotgun wound to the right inferior scapula
region, also described as her right lateral mid back. It was a
fatal wound causing injuries to her visceral organs including her
lungs, heart, and liver. That would be evidence that the
Commonwealth would present at trial, Your Honor, to which we
believe would support a conviction for Murder of the First
Degree.
N.T. (Plea), 8/21/12, at 35–41.
The plea agreement provided for a “firm bargain for life
imprisonment.” Plea Agreement, 8/21/12, at ¶ 2. The trial court accepted
the plea, which was entered during jury selection, and imposed a sentence
of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Order, 8/21/12. Appellant
did not file a direct appeal.
-4-
J-S52008-15
On October 29, 2012, Appellant filed both a purported pro se motion
to withdraw his plea and a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed
counsel, who filed an amended petition on April 15, 2013. The trial court
held hearings on January 15, 2014,1 and March 25, 2014, and denied PCRA
relief on August 29, 2014. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and
both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Whether the Trial Court properly concluded that appellant
was provided effective assistance of counsel in entering his
nolo contendere plea to the charge of Murder in the First
Degree?
II. Whether the trial court properly concluded appellant’s plea
was not unlawfully induced by either the District Attorney
or his counsel, and the circumstances make it likely that
he is innocent of the charge of Murder in the First Degree?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
When reviewing the propriety of an order denying PCRA relief, this
Court is limited to determining whether the evidence of record supports the
conclusions of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Perez, 103 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2014). We grant
great deference to the PCRA court’s findings that are supported in the
record, Commonwealth v. Rachak, 62 A.3d 389 (Pa. Super. 2012), and
____________________________________________
1
Both the Commonwealth and the trial court state the date of the hearing
was January 14, 2014; we utilize the date stated on the transcript in the
certified record, January 15, 2014.
-5-
J-S52008-15
will not disturb them unless they have no support in the certified record.
Commonwealth v. Lippert, 85 A.3d 1095, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal
denied, 95 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2014).
In order to obtain collateral relief, a PCRA petitioner must establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence resulted
from one or more of the circumstances enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(2). Instantly, Appellant asserted in his PCRA petition the
existence of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(2)(ii). A PCRA petitioner alleging ineffectiveness of his counsel
will be granted relief only if he is able to prove that, “in the circumstances of
[his] particular case,” the truth-determining process was undermined to the
extent “that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
place.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). The law presumes that counsel was
effective, Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 114 A.3d 401, 410 (Pa. 2015),
and it is the petitioner’s burden to prove the contrary. Commonwealth v.
Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, at 132 (Pa. 2012). To plead and prove ineffective
assistance of counsel a petitioner must establish: (1) that the underlying
issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective
reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudice resulted from counsel’s act or
failure to act. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 706 (Pa. Super.
2013) (en banc). A claim of ineffectiveness will be denied if the petitioner’s
evidence fails to meet any one of these prongs. Commonwealth v.
-6-
J-S52008-15
Martin, 5 A.3d 177, 183 (Pa. 2010). We have explained that trial counsel
cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim.
Commonwealth v. Loner, 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc).
Moreover, the PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by
the record, are binding on this Court. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d
244, 259 (Pa. 2011).
We address the issues in tandem. Appellant contends that trial
counsel2 provided ineffective assistance of counsel in advising him to plead
nolo contendere, maintaining that trial counsel did not advise him that entry
of the plea would result in a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
In conjunction, he maintains that because trial counsel failed to meet with
him and were not prepared for trial, he was forced to accept the plea.
Appellant’s Brief at 6. He asserts that he “couldn’t think straight,” “was an
emotional wreck,” and was distracted and “not really paying attention.” Id.
at 8–10. He suggests that he was induced to plead guilty by promises that
counsel would represent him in a custody matter following entry of the plea.
We note with disfavor that other than citing case law that refers to
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards, Appellant fails to support his
argument with citation to relevant law. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
____________________________________________
2
Appellant was represented pretrial and during plea proceedings by Thomas
M. Dickey, who practiced law for thirty years, and penalty phase counsel,
David Beyer, who practiced law for sixteen years. N.T. (PCRA), 3/25/14, at
25, 118–119.
-7-
J-S52008-15
Procedure require adequate development of each issue raised with
discussion of pertinent authority. Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d
1001, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2014); Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Nevertheless, we address
Appellant’s issues.
Allegations of ineffectiveness in connection with the entry of a guilty
plea3 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). “[T]he law does not require that
[the appellant] be pleased with the outcome of his decision to enter a plea of
guilty: All that is required is that his decision to plead guilty be knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently made.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995
A.2d 1184, 1192 (Pa. Super. 2010). Moreover, with regard to the prejudice
prong of the ineffectiveness standard, where an appellant has entered a
guilty plea, he 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. Timchak, 69 A.3d 765, 770 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citing Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365, 370 (Pa. Super. 2006)).
____________________________________________
3
“In terms of its effect upon a case, a plea of nolo contendere is treated the
same as a guilty plea.” Commonwealth v. Kepner, 34 A.3d 162, 166 n.2
(Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Lewis, 791 A.2d 1227, 1230
(Pa. Super. 2002)).
-8-
J-S52008-15
The PCRA court determined that Appellant’s claims are not supported
in the record and therefore, lack arguable merit. PCRA Court Opinion,
9/3/14, at 17. We have reviewed the complete record, and we agree.
Appellant testified at the PCRA hearing that his counsel did not tell him
that a life sentence meant “there was no parole,” and “he wouldn’t have
signed nothing” if he had known that fact. N.T. (PCRA), 1/15/14, at 54.
Appellant’s assertion that trial counsel did not advise him that entry of the
plea would result in a life sentence without the possibility of parole is belied
by the record.
At the plea colloquy, Appellant stated that he reviewed the plea
agreement “in its entirety” with his attorney and that he understood it. N.T.
(Plea), 8/21/12, at 4. Appellant agreed that he reviewed the sentence
recommendations of the plea agreement. Id. at 6. Appellant indicated his
understanding of the plea court’s explanations. Id. at 11. While Appellant
acknowledged taking prescribed medication from his “psych doctor,” he
stated that it did not affect his ability to understand the proceedings. Id.
When the Commonwealth addressed the court about related matters,
the prosecutor noted that the terms of the plea agreement “ensure[] that
[Appellant] will be incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life.” N.T.
(Plea), 8/21/12, at 43. Appellant did not disagree or offer comment. Id.
The prosecutor also explained its agreement “to take the death penalty off
the table if [Appellant] entered a guilty plea.” Id. at 44. At that point,
-9-
J-S52008-15
defense counsel stated, “I want to make sure [Appellant] is aware that a life
sentence means without parole.” Id. The plea court asked Appellant, “Do
you understand that, Mr. Gerholt?” Id. Appellant replied, “Yes.” Id. at 45.
Attorney Dickey testified that there was no indication that Appellant
did not understand “what he was doing.” N.T. (PCRA), 3/25/14, at 56.
Counsel testified that he attempted to obtain the Commonwealth’s
agreement to a plea to third-degree murder, but “[t]hat just wasn’t
happening.” Id. Regarding Appellant’s claim that “nobody ever told
[Appellant] he was entering a plea to First Degree Murder,” Attorney Dickey
testified, “That’s simply not true.” Id. Attorney Dickey offered extensive
testimony regarding the explanations given to Appellant, and indicated that
Appellant “absolutely” was told that the penalty for first-degree murder was
life imprisonment without parole. Id. at 56–61. He further testified that it
was Appellant’s decision to plead to first-degree murder. Id. at 61.
Regarding his preparedness for trial, Attorney Dickey testified that he was
“absolutely” prepared to go to trial. N.T. (PCRA), 3/25/14, at 40, 84.
Attorney Dickey also testified regarding Appellant’s implication, set
forth in issue two, that his counsel made promises about separate legal
matters “for the purpose of inducing him to enter the plea . . . .” Appellant’s
Brief at 13. PCRA counsel asked Attorney Dickey if he “ever promis[ed
Appellant] that [he] would represent him in some sort of civil action to
- 10 -
J-S52008-15
provide title or whatever for these [grave] plots.” 4 N.T. (PCRA), 3/25/14, at
89. Counsel responded:
Well, not in relation to the plea. What I said to [Appellant]
was . . . . if you want, I will follow through with you.
* * *
I was waiting to hear from him.
* * *
[W]hen we left I told him once he got situated he needed to let
me know what he wanted me to do with like this property and
some stuff like that. And I never heard any direction from that.
Id. at 90–91. Attorney Dickey explained that he “was just basically trying to
do that just as a courtesy to him because I had told him. I was basically
sticking to my word that I could do it for him before.” Id. at 91–92.
Appellant never contacted counsel about these matters. Id. at 91.
Attorney Beyer’s testimony was similar to that of Attorney Dickey.
Both men agreed that Appellant hoped to get a plea offer to third-degree
murder, but he understood that he ultimately was facing the possibility of a
first-degree murder conviction and the death penalty. N.T. (PCRA),
3/25/14, at 120–122. Attorney Beyer explained that Attorney Dickey was
“very specific” with Appellant that “life without parole means life without
____________________________________________
4
Appellant asserted that he wanted to visit the victim’s grave, he wanted
his children to visit him, and he had a civil matter relating to burial plots. He
implied that he entered a plea in order to gain Attorney Dickey’s
representation on these matters. N.T. (PCRA), 1/15/14, at 26–28;
Appellant’s Brief at 12.
- 11 -
J-S52008-15
parole.” Id. at 123. Attorney Beyer testified that during jury selection,
when it was clear that there was no plea offer to third-degree murder, and
the Commonwealth was not “budging” regarding removing the death penalty
from “the table,” Appellant began questioning the viability of a plea to first-
degree murder to avoid the possibility of receiving the death penalty. Id. at
125. Attorney Beyer indicated that he was “ready to handle the death
penalty phase,” that he had “mitigation experts” hired, and that he had a
“team” assembled and prepared if Appellant was convicted of first-degree
murder. Id. at 126–127. Attorney Beyer also explained that in addition, he
was “very involved in the guilt phase process” as well, reviewing strategies
and evaluating the case. Id. at 127–128. When asked about Appellant’s
mental state and understanding of the proceedings and trial preparation,
Attorney Beyer described Appellant as “very cognizant with me, very
understanding. . . . I never, ever felt that he didn’t understand what I was
saying. He asked relevant questions, and he was very tuned in with what
was going on.” Id. at 128.
Our review of the record compels the conclusion that the PCRA court’s
finding that Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel lacks
arguable merit is amply supported. The PCRA court explained that it did
“not credit the contentions of [Appellant]” and found that they did not have
arguable merit. PCRA Court Opinion, 9/3/14, at 7. Deferring to the PCRA
court’s credibility conclusions as we must, Spotz, 18 A.3d at 259, and
- 12 -
J-S52008-15
concluding that its conclusions are supported in the record, Appellant has
failed to prove that his underlying claim has arguable merit. It is clear that
while Appellant initially hoped to plead to third-degree murder, as the
potentiality of the death penalty morphed into reality during jury selection,
Appellant’s focus shifted.5 Appellant is not entitled to relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2015
____________________________________________
5
When asked at the PCRA hearing, if Appellant was “adamant that he didn’t
want to take life in prison, First Degree Murder, and then at jury selection
and the next day” he decided to plead, “[w]hat changed?” Attorney Beyer
explained:
You know, it’s not uncommon. A defense attorney will see
it all the time. Once you start to pick a jury they’re realizing at
that point in time, my opinion anyway, that Third is not an
option. That I’m really going through with this and maybe what
my attorneys have been telling me for the past couple of years is
true and maybe I am looking at the death penalty. I think
that’s—whenever those realities start setting in that’s when they
start really weighing their options, and I think that’s what
happened here in my opinion.
N.T. (PCRA), 3/25/14, at 125–126.
- 13 -
Com. v. Gerholt, J.
Combined Opinion