J-S03005-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JERMAINE LEMAR KENNEDY,
Appellant No. 1913 WDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order of November 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0013109-2014
BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2017
Appellant, Jermaine Lemar Kennedy, appeals from the order entered
on November 17, 2015, which dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the
Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On March 3, 2015, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea at three
criminal docket numbers. Under the plea agreement, Appellant agreed to
plead guilty to: two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the
intent to deliver (“PWID”); three counts of possession of a controlled
substance; three counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person;
and, one count each of receiving stolen property, criminal use of a
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03005-17
communications facility, and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 In
exchange, the Commonwealth agreed to withdraw one count of PWID and
recommend an aggregate sentence of four to eight years in prison, followed
by five years of probation.
During the guilty plea hearing, the Commonwealth set forth the factual
basis for Appellant’s guilty plea:
Your Honor, had Case No. 2014-14631 gone to trial, the
Commonwealth would have called as its witnesses City of
Pittsburgh Police Officers Glavach [], Novosel []; and from
the Allegheny County Medical Examiner’s Office, Emily Ashy.
They would testify substantially as follows:
That on August the 7th, 2014, the officers mentioned
observed what they believed to be a drug transaction
between [Appellant] and an individual named Adam Todd.
They pursued Mr. Todd and, in fact, recovered heroin from
him. They then went back and got [Appellant] who was in
or at his Mercedes automobile and took him into custody. A
search was made. They recovered additional heroin. Mr.
Todd had ten stamp bags marked “HEART ATTACK” in red
ink, and there were four stamp bags marked “RICH” in red
ink. [Appellant] had $101 in [United States] currency and
three cell phones.
The drugs were turned over to the Allegheny County
Medical Examiner’s Office for testing. . . . The weight of the
heroin was 0.67 grams and tested positive for heroin. . . .
The car was towed by the police. Subsequently[,] the police
received information from an informant that there were
more drugs to be found in the car. And so at Case No.
2014-13098, the Commonwealth would call City of
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 3925(a),
and 7512(a), and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), respectively.
-2-
J-S03005-17
Pittsburgh Police Officers Brian Martin[,] Brian Burgunder, []
William Churilla, [] Walter Jones[,] and Jeffrey Deschon[.]
Having received information from the informant there were
more drugs in the car, they took a K-9 officer on August the
15th to the impound lot. The dog hit on the car, and as a
result, the officers obtained a search warrant for the car
resulting in the recovery of [69] blue stamp bags marked
“MTV” each holding tan powder, [68] stamp bags – excuse
me, [12] stamp bags stamped “Buzz Light Year” or with a
Buzz Lightyear picture each holding tan powder, five stamp
bags stamped “Heart Attack” each holding tan powder,
three stamp bags marked “Black Jack” each holding tan
powder, and three stamp bags stamped “Rich” each holding
tan powder, and one each of stamp bags marked “Focus”
and “Chi-Raq”. . . . The material tested positive for heroin.
. . . The approximate weight was 1.592 grams. There was
an additional knotted baggie of off-white solids that tested
positive for cocaine. That weighed .518 grams.
It would be the officer’s opinion, based on their training and
experience, the quantity of heroin, that the heroin was
possessed in that case with the intent to deliver.
As a result of finding the heroin pursuant to the search
warrant, an arrest warrant was issued for [Appellant] for
that material, the heroin and the cocaine; and on
September the 11th, 2014, at Case No. 2014-13109, the
Commonwealth would call Detective Sheila Ladner[,]
Detective Joseph Novakowski[,] Detective Matt Truesdell[,]
Detective Anthony Palermo[,] and from the Allegheny
County Crime Lab, Jason Very, Nicole James[,] civilian
witness, John Ciangiarulo[], and Ryan Young from the
Pittsburgh Police. They would testify that an attempt was
made to locate [Appellant] on the warrant issued from the
previous case. They located him in the McKees Rocks area,
and he was going in and out of a house on Olivia, but they
weren’t sure which one, and he was seen going to a black
Mercedes, not the same black Mercedes that was involved in
the first case. He was seen at and in the trunk of the car.
Detective Ladner placed phone calls and text messages to a
phone belonging to [Appellant] and arranged to buy a
-3-
J-S03005-17
bundle of heroin from [Appellant] in the McKees Rocks area
under a bridge.
Once the meet was set, the detectives who were watching
the street observed [Appellant] leave the house on Olivia,
go over to the trunk of the car, open it, take something out
and then head down . . . towards the bridge at which time
United States Marshals and City of Pittsburgh Police
apprehended him. At the time they apprehended him, he
was on his cell phone with Detective Ladner. She was
giving him directions on where she was, and she’d testify
that she actually heard [Appellant] – the beginning of the
attempt to take [Appellant] into custody over the phone.
[Appellant] was searched incident to arrest and found to
have a bundle of ten blue stamp bags marked “DRAFT,” []
on his person as well as $60 in cash . . . and they recovered
the cell phone.
Once he was taken into custody, they sat on the black
Mercedes that he had gone to before he went to make the
deal and obtained a search warrant for it. When they
executed the search warrant, they recovered Exhibit 2, a
gray Atlanta Braves drawstring bag which contained the
following: [a] plastic sandwich bag containing two bundles
and seven loose bags of heroin marked “DRAFT,” [] in blue
ink that matched the bundle [Appellant] had on his person
when he was taken into custody.
There was also a Ziploc bag containing one knotted baggie
of loose crack cocaine and one knotted baggie containing a
number of knotted baggie corners of crack cocaine.
There was also a brown box which contained [36] white
unmarked bags of heroin, one Scotch Tape roll, . . . two
stamp pads and two wooden stampers, neither of which was
the “DRAFT” stamp.
They also recovered a Ziploc baggie of marijuana and a
plastic bag containing multiple bundles of heroin marked
with a red stamp. The stamp itself was unreadable.
There was also a pack of Juicy Fruit gum and a black digital
scale.
-4-
J-S03005-17
Then there were three additional Ziploc baggies each of
which contained a handgun. One contained a loaded
Beretta [92FS] 9-millimeter semiautomatic. . . . One
contained a loaded Israel Military Industries Desert Eagle 9-
millimeter semiautomatic handgun. . . . That gun had been
reported stolen by Mr. Ciangiarulo approximately eight
months earlier from his residence in McKees Rocks. And the
third one was an FIE .22 caliber Model T18 revolver. . . .
We would introduce documents that were recovered from
the car in [Appellant’s] name; specifically, purchase
documents for the Mercedes that had been seized earlier as
well as a financial responsibility card for the Mercedes that
had been seized earlier in the first case that led to all of
this.
The drugs were turned over to the Allegheny County
Medical Examiner’s Office. . . . The total weight of the
heroin on [Appellant] was . . . in excess of .25 grams. . . .
There was a calculated collective net weight of slightly over
one gram of the [27] blue stamp bags. There was the
cocaine base. The crack cocaine weighed 5.815 grams.
That was the baggie of it. And then the multiple baggies
had a collective gross weight of 2.091 grams. There was
also .839 grams in the exhibit holding the [36] white stamp
bags. . . . The marijuana weighed 14.923 grams. . . .
The guns were all examined and test-fired, and they were
all found to be in good operating condition.
It would be the officer’s opinion, based on their training and
experience, the quantity of heroin, the possession of the
digital scale, the ink pads, the stampers, the multiple stamp
bags with the different stamp bags, the lack of any use
paraphernalia, the fact that [Appellant] engaged in
conversation with the detective to make a sale and, in fact,
went to make a sale of heroin, that he possessed the heroin
as well as the crack cocaine with intent to deliver and not
solely for personal use. There was no paraphernalia
whatsoever for the crack cocaine.
-5-
J-S03005-17
We would also introduce evidence that [Appellant] had two
prior felony drug convictions which would make him a
person who is not permitted to possess a firearm. . . .
N.T. Guilty Plea and Sentence, 3/3/15, at 6-12.
At the conclusion of the factual recitation, Appellant testified that he
was “pleading guilty to [the] charges because [he is], in fact, guilty.” Id. at
12-13. The trial court then sentenced Appellant in accordance with the
negotiated term of incarceration; specifically, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to serve an aggregate term of four to eight years in prison,
followed by five years of probation, for his convictions. Id. at 14-15.
On April 20, 2015, Appellant filed an untimely, pro se “Motion to
Withdraw Guilty Plea.” Within the motion, Appellant requested to withdraw
his guilty plea for a number of reasons, including: 1) “counsel was
ineffective for fail[ing] to present [Appellant’s] mental health status before
sentencing in court for mitigating circumstances;” 2) “counsel [was]
ineffective . . . for not filing [a] suppression [motion] as requested by
[Appellant];” 3) “counsel was [] ineffective for nondisclosure of discovery;”
and, 4) “guilty plea was coerced due to misrepresentation by counsel and
the apology to trial judge while taking the plea.” Appellant’s “Motion to
Withdraw Guilty Plea,” 4/20/15, at 1-3.
The trial court correctly construed Appellant’s untimely motion as a
first petition filed under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 803
A.2d 1291, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“the PCRA provides the sole means for
obtaining collateral review, and [] any petition filed after the judgment of
-6-
J-S03005-17
sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA petition”). Therefore, the
trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant during the PCRA
proceedings. PCRA Court Order, 4/28/15, at 1. However, on September 2,
2015, appointed counsel filed a no-merit letter and a request to withdraw as
counsel, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988)
and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
After reviewing counsel’s no-merit letter, the PCRA court granted counsel’s
petition to withdraw and issued Appellant notice, pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Criminal Procedure 907, of its intent to dismiss Appellant’s petition in
20 days, without holding a hearing. PCRA Court Order, 10/21/15, at 1-3.
Appellant did not file a meaningful response to the PCRA court’s Rule
907 notice and, on November 17, 2015, the PCRA court finally dismissed
Appellant’s petition. PCRA Court Order, 11/17/15, at 1.
Appellant filed a timely, pro se notice of appeal from the PCRA court’s
order and the PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Appellant on this
appeal. See PCRA Court Order, 2/4/16, at 1.2 Appellant raises one claim on
appeal:
____________________________________________
2
The PCRA court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b). Moreover, although Appellant filed a purported Rule
1925(b) statement pro se, Appellant only did so after the PCRA court
appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. See Appellant’s Pro Se Rule
1925(b) Statement, 2/16/16, at 1. Therefore, since Appellant filed his pro
se Rule 1925(b) statement while he was represented by counsel, we will not
hold that Appellant’s pro se Rule 1925(b) statement constricts the claims he
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-7-
J-S03005-17
Did the [PCRA] court err as a matter of law in refusing to
grant relief on the [PCRA] petition in the form of permitting
[Appellant] to withdraw his guilty plea due to the ineffective
assistance of counsel?
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
As we have stated:
[t]his Court’s standard of review regarding an order
dismissing a petition under the PCRA is whether the
determination of the PCRA court is supported by evidence of
record and is free of legal error. In evaluating a PCRA
court’s decision, our scope of review is limited to the
findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record,
viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at
the trial level. We may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on
any grounds if it is supported by the record.
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal
citations omitted).
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
is entitled to raise on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d
1137, 1139 (Pa. 1993) (“there is no constitutional right to hybrid
representation either at trial or on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Pursell,
724 A.2d 293, 302 (Pa. 1999) (“[w]e will not require courts considering
PCRA petitions to struggle through the pro se filings of [petitioners] when
qualified counsel represent[s] those [petitioners]”); Commonwealth v.
Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54, 56 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2015) (the defendant’s “pro se
motion to modify sentence . . . was a legal nullity . . . [because] he was
represented by counsel” at the time); Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(A)(4) (where a
represented criminal defendant submits a pro se document for filing, “the
clerk of courts shall accept it for filing, time stamp it with the date of receipt
and make a docket entry reflecting the date of receipt, [] place the
document in the criminal case file[, and forward a copy of the document] to
the defendant’s attorney and the attorney for the Commonwealth”);
Pa.R.Crim.P. 576 cmt. (Rule 576(A)(4)’s “requirement that the clerk time
stamp and make docket entries of the filings in these cases only serves to
provide a record of the filing, and does not trigger any deadline nor require
any response”).
-8-
J-S03005-17
To be eligible for relief under the PCRA, the petitioner must plead and
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or sentence
resulted from “one or more” of the seven, specifically enumerated
circumstances listed in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2). One of these statutorily
enumerated circumstances is the “[i]neffectiveness of counsel which, in the
circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining
process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken
place.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii).
Counsel is, however, presumed to be effective and “the burden of
demonstrating ineffectiveness rests on [A]ppellant.” Rivera, 10 A.3d at
1279. To satisfy this burden, Appellant must plead and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the
particular course of conduct pursued by counsel did not
have some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his
interests; and, (3) but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, there is
a reasonable probability that the outcome of the challenged
proceedings would have been different.
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567, 572 (Pa. 2003). “A failure to
satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the
claim.” Id.
To establish the reasonable basis prong, we must look to see whether
trial counsel’s strategy was “so unreasonable that no competent lawyer
would have chosen that course of conduct.” Commonwealth v. Williams,
640 A.2d 1251, 1265 (Pa. 1994). An attorney’s trial strategy “will not be
-9-
J-S03005-17
found to have lacked a reasonable basis unless it is proven that an
alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater
than the course actually pursued.” Commonwealth v. Howard, 719 A.2d
233, 237 (Pa. 1998). Further, if an appellant has clearly not met the
prejudice prong, a court may dismiss the claim on that basis alone and need
not determine whether the other two prongs have been met.
Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 357 (Pa. 1995).
We also note that “[a] criminal defendant has the right to effective
counsel during a plea process as well as during trial.” Commonwealth v.
Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 141 (Pa. Super. 2002). Yet, where the
ineffectiveness of counsel is claimed in connection with the entry of a guilty
plea, a petitioner may only obtain relief where “counsel’s deficient
stewardship resulted in a manifest injustice, for example, by facilitating [the]
entry of an unknowing, involuntary, or unintelligent plea.” Commonwealth
v. Moser, 921 A.2d 526, 530 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (internal
citations and quotations omitted). As we have explained:
once a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, it is
presumed that he was aware of what he was doing, and the
burden of proving involuntariness is upon him. Therefore,
where the record clearly demonstrates that a guilty plea
colloquy was conducted, during which it became evident
that the defendant understood the nature of the charges
against him, the voluntariness of the plea is established.
Commonwealth v. Stork, 737 A.2d 789, 791 (Pa. Super. 1999) (internal
quotations, citations, and corrections omitted), quoting Commonwealth v.
- 10 -
J-S03005-17
Myers, 642 A.2d 1103, 1105 (Pa. Super. 1994). “To prove prejudice, [an]
appellant must prove he would not have [pleaded] guilty and would have
achieved a better outcome at trial.” Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d
795 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
According to Appellant, his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
file a suppression motion and for failing to inform the trial court about his
“mental health issues.” Appellant’s Brief at 17.3 These claims fail.
First, with respect to counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion, the
claim of ineffectiveness fails because Appellant never specified the possible
basis for a suppression motion in his PCRA petition or in his brief to this
Court and Appellant thus never claimed or argued that: the unarticulated
suppression claim had arguable merit; counsel’s failure to file the
suppression motion lacked “some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his
interests;” or, Appellant suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s alleged
failing. Fulton, 830 A.2d at 572. The claim thus immediately fails.
With respect to Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to inform the trial court about Appellant’s “mental health issues,”
the claim likewise fails because Appellant never pleaded or claimed that he
____________________________________________
3
Within Appellant’s brief to this Court, Appellant also claims that counsel
was ineffective for failing to inform the prosecution about his “mental health
issues.” Appellant’s Brief at 14 and 17. Appellant never raised this claim in
his PCRA petition; as such, the claim is waived. Fulton, 830 A.2d at 572;
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”).
- 11 -
J-S03005-17
suffered from some specific, identifiable “mental health issue” and Appellant
never pleaded or claimed that the trial court would have acted any
differently had it known of Appellant’s alleged “mental health issue.” See
Fulton, 830 A.2d at 572.
Therefore, Appellant’s claims on appeal fail.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/22/2017
- 12 -