J-S46033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
RODNEY BEVINS, :
:
Appellant : No. 3524 EDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order October 26, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-46-CR-0004059-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 25, 2016
Rodney Bevins (Appellant) appeals pro se from the October 23, 2015
order dismissing his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural
background of this case as follows:
On September 25, 2014, [Appellant] entered into a
negotiated guilty plea in which he agreed to plead guilty to one
count of possession with intent to deliver. As part of the plea,
[Appellant] admitted that on February 6, 2014, a search of his
cell at SCI-Graterford revealed that he possessed 125 Xanax pills
and then gave a statement indicating that those pills were going
to be delivered to other people. In return for [Appellant’s]
admission of guilt, he agreed to a term of 7½ to 15 years’
imprisonment, to run concurrent with any previously imposed
sentence he was currently serving at the time he entered his
plea. [Appellant] did not file a direct appeal.
On July 21, 2015, [Appellant] filed a timely first pro se
PCRA petition, which is the subject of this appeal. Counsel was
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S46033-16
appointed to assist Appellant with his petition. After a
conscientious review of the record, PCRA counsel determined all
issues lacked merit and submitted a no-merit letter dated
October 6, 2015, also, seeking to withdraw.
In accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, [the PCRA court]
issued a pre-dismissal notice dated October 7, 2015, in which
[Appellant] was notified of the proposed dismissal and of his
right to file a response.[1] On October 20, 2015, [Appellant] did
file a response entitled “Objection to Rule 907.” Subsequently,
[the PCRA court] issued a final order of dismissal dated October
23, 2015. On November 20, 2015, [Appellant] filed this timely
pro se appeal.
PCRA Court Opinion, 12/31/2015, at 1-2 (citations omitted).2
Appellant states the following issue for this Court’s review: “Did the
[PCRA court] err in not correcting an illegal sentence?” Appellant’s Brief at
iii.
Our standard of review of an order dismissing a PCRA petition is well-
settled. In reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying PCRA
relief, an appellate court is limited to ascertaining whether the record
supports the determination of the PCRA court and whether the ruling is free
of legal error. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 532 (Pa. 2009).
This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court if the
record contains any support for those findings. Commonwealth v. Boyd,
923 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2007).
1
The PCRA court simultaneously granted counsel’s request to withdraw.
2
Both Appellant and the PCRA court complied with the mandates of
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2-
J-S46033-16
Here, Appellant argues that his mandatory minimum sentence is illegal
pursuant to the holding in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151
(2013). However, our review of the record shows that, despite his
protestations to the contrary, Appellant was not sentenced under any
mandatory minimum provision.3 As the PCRA court noted, Appellant’s
sentence was entered pursuant to a negotiated plea deal, where he received
a sentence within the guidelines. PCRA Court Opinion, 12/31/15, at 1-3.
Further, the record indicates the Commonwealth never filed a notice of its
intent to seek a mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 3.
Accordingly, we find that the PCRA court properly dismissed
Appellant’s petition, and as such, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
3
In his brief, Appellant seems to proffer the argument that his prior record
score, used to determine his sentencing guidelines, is an “enhancement
provision” which “jells a mandatory minimum stature [sic]” and is therefore
unconstitutional in accordance with Alleyne. See Appellant’s Brief at 1.
We find this argument to be unpersuasive, not supported by case law, and
an inaccurate interpretation of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in
Alleyne.
-3-
J-S46033-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/25/2016
-4-
Com. v. Bevins, R.
Combined Opinion