J-S61036-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANTONIO JOHNSON, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 2968 EDA 2017
Appeal from the PCRA Order August 24, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009395-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2019
Antonio Johnson, Jr. appeals pro se from the order dismissing his first
petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9541-9546, without a hearing. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On May 30,
2011, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with murder, possessing an
instrument of crime (“PIC”), carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying
a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia1 in connection with the shooting death
of Dexter Young. Instead of proceeding to a jury trial, Appellant entered into
a guilty plea with the Commonwealth. In exchange for a negotiated aggregate
sentence of 22.5 to 45 years’ imprisonment, Appellant pled guilty to murder
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 907, 6106, and 6108, respectively.
J-S61036-18
in the third degree and PIC.2 The trial court sentenced Appellant pursuant to
the terms of the plea deal; however, Appellant appealed his sentence. A panel
of this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence on May 16, 2013. See
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 1531 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super., filed, May 16,
2013) (unpublished memorandum).
On January 28, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition.3 The PCRA
court appointed counsel, who later filed a no-merit letter and a motion to
withdraw. Based upon the no-merit letter and its independent review of the
record, the court issued notice of its intent to dismiss and permitted counsel
to withdraw. Despite Appellant’s response, the court ultimately dismissed
Appellant’s petition without a hearing. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Appellant asserts: 1) the trial court erred by failing to give
an adequate and contemporaneous reason for imposing an above-guidelines
sentence; 2) PCRA and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to
challenge Appellant’s above-guidelines PIC sentence; 3) his rights under the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated; 4) the PCRA
court erred in failing to apply Appellants’ PCRA petition “retroactively to
[A]ppellant’s appeal;” 5) the use of the deadly weapon enhancement “at 42
____________________________________________
2 Specifically, Appellant received a sentence of 20 to 40 years imprisonment
for his murder conviction and a sentence of 2.5 to 5 years imprisonment for
his PIC conviction.
3Appellant filed amendments to his petition on March 12, 2014, October 6,
2014, January 23, 2015, February 5, 2015, and March 8, 2016.
-2-
J-S61036-18
Pa.C.S. § 9712” rendered his sentence illegal under Alleyne v. United
States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); and 6) PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing
to argue that the application of the deadly weapon enhancement rendered
Appellants’ sentence illegal.4 See Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
We must first determine which of these issues Appellant has preserved
for our review. As explained below, he has only preserved the final two issues
for our review.
Issue one alleges a claims of trial court error. Appellant argues the trial
court erred by failing to make a contemporaneous statement of reasons for
its departure from the sentencing guidelines.
The PCRA, however, procedurally bars claims of trial court error,
by requiring a petitioner to show the allegation of error is not
previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9543(a)(3), 9544.
At the PCRA stage, claims of trial court error are either previously
litigated (if raised on direct appeal) or waived (if not).
Commonwealth v. Spotz, [] 18 A.3d 244, 260-61, 270 ([Pa.]
2011) (rejecting claims of trial court error as either previously
litigated where raised on direct appeal or waived where not raised
[on] direct appeal).
Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 780 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(en banc).
Appellant failed to raise this claim on direct appeal. As such, we find this
issue waived and procedurally barred from review under the PCRA.
Additionally, issues two, three, and four are waived for Appellant’s
failure to develop these arguments in his appellate brief.
____________________________________________
4 We have renumbered Appellant’s issues for ease of disposition.
-3-
J-S61036-18
Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed
by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit.
Accordingly, pro se litigants must comply with the procedural
rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court. This Court
will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf
of an appellant.
Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). “It is Appellant’s obligation to
sufficiently develop arguments in his brief by applying the relevant law to the
facts of the case, persuade this Court that there were errors below, and
convince us relief is due because of those errors. If an appellant does not do
so, we may find the argument waived.” Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d
274, 284 (Pa. Super. 2009). Despite his inclusion of six issues on appeal,
Appellant’s argument section of his appellate brief only addresses his final two
issues on appeal. The brief completely fails to address issues two, three, and
four. Accordingly, he has waived these issues on appeal for failure to develop
arguments. See Tchirkow, 160 A.3d at 804 (“It is well-established that
[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs
are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not
consider the merits thereof”).
This leaves us with issues five and six to address on the merits. Through
his fifth issue on appeal, Appellant contends his negotiated sentence, which
he alleges was calculated according to the deadly weapon “enhancement” at
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712, was rendered illegal following the Alleyne decision.
Additionally, through issue six, Appellant asserts ineffectiveness of PCRA
counsel for failing to raise this issue in a PCRA petition.
-4-
J-S61036-18
“On appeal from denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review
is limited to determining whether the PCRA court’s findings are supported by
the record and without legal error.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d
339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). On questions of law, our scope of
review is de novo. See id.
We presume counsel’s effectiveness, and an appellant bears the burden
of proving otherwise. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960, 965
(Pa. Super. 2017). To establish ineffectiveness of counsel, a PCRA petitioner
must plead and prove the following: his underlying legal claim has arguable
merit; counsel’s actions lacked any reasonable basis; and counsel’s actions
prejudiced the petitioner. See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 260
(Pa. 2011). Failure to satisfy any prong of the ineffectiveness test requires
dismissal of the claim. See Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249
(Pa. Super. 2004). Additionally, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for
failure to raise a meritless claim. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d
268, 278 (Pa. 2006).
The Commonwealth contends that Appellant’s claims concerning the
deadly weapon enhancement fail because the issue is meritless. We agree.
Appellant is correct in noting that Alleyne rendered 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
9712, which provided mandatory minimum sentences for using deadly
weapons, unconstitutional. However, Appellant’s sentence was not derived
from that statute. Instead, the parties calculated Appellant’s negotiated
sentence using the sentencing guideline enhancement for using a deadly
-5-
J-S61036-18
weapon found at 204 Pa.Code § 303.10(a)(2). This Court has specifically held
“[t]he imposition of the deadly weapon enhancement does not implicate the
Supreme Court of the United States’ holding [] in Alleyne[.]”
Commonwealth v. Shull, 148 A.3d 820, 830 n.6; see also Commonwealth
v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1270 n. 10 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en
banc)(explaining imposition of deadly weapon enhancement still provides trial
court with the discretion to sentence outside the guideline range, and
therefore, does not implicate Alleyne). Therefore, his claim of an illegal
sentence under Alleyne fails. Additionally, because Appellant’s
ineffectiveness claim is based upon PCRA counsel’s failure to challenge the
legality of his sentence under Alleyne, this claim also fails. See Jones, 912 at
278 (counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless
claim).
As Appellant is due no relief on any of his issues, we affirm the PCRA
court’s order dismissing his petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/13/19
-6-