J-S02034-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
SANTIAGO PEDROSO :
:
Appellant : No. 1552 EDA 2018
Appeal from the PCRA Order May 4, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012715-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 1, 2019
Appellant, Santiago Pedroso, appeals from the order entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his first petition
brought pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), at 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
In its opinion, the PCRA court correctly set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
We add that Appellant filed a motion to suppress on January 28, 2015, which
the court denied after a hearing on February 23, 2015. On April 30, 2018,
Appellant file a pro se petition for an extension of time to file an amended
PCRA petition. Appellant filed a pro se amended PCRA petition on May 14,
2018, without leave of court. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal
on May 21, 2018. That same day, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a
J-S02034-19
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Appellant timely complied pro se on May 31, 2018.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[] WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT
[APPELLANT’S] EXTENSION OF TIME MOTION IN ORDER TO
FILE AN AMENDED PCRA PETITION WHEN PCRA COUNSEL
FILED AN "AMENDED TURNER/FINLEY NO-MERIT
LETTER" WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT ON MARCH 21, 2018,
AFTER [THE PCRA COURT HAD ENTERED RULE] 907 NOTICE
TO DISMISS AND [APPELLANT HAD FILED A PRO SE RULE]
907 RESPONSE? WAS AMENDMENT OF THE PCRA PETITION
REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE?
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[] WHEN IT FOUND TRIAL AND
PCRA COUNSEL EFFECTIVE? DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[]
WHEN IT FOUND [APPELLANT]’S ISSUE OF [TRIAL]
COUNSEL PROVIDING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR
FAILING TO ARGUE SUPPRESSION OF [APPELLANT]’S
STATEMENT TO POLICE?
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[] WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND
THAT TRIAL AND PCRA COUNSEL BOTH PROVIDED
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN THEY BOTH
FAILED TO COMMUNICATE THE POTENTIAL PLEA BARGAIN
THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OFFERED?
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[] WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND
PCRA COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR
FAILING TO ARGUE THE HEAT OF PASSION DOCTRINE?
AND WAS [APPELLATE] COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE HEAT OF PASSION
DOCTRINE ON DIRECT APPEAL…?
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[] WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND
TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOTION
THE COURT PURSUANT PA.R.CRIM.P. 588? AND WAS PCRA
COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE [TRIAL]
COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVENESS FOR FAILING TO MOTION
FOR THE RETURN OF [APPELLANT’S] CONFISCATED MONEY
PURSUANT TO RULE 588?
-2-
J-S02034-19
DID THE [PCRA] COURT ERR[] WHEN IT FAILED TO FIND
PCRA COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE
TRIAL COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
FOR FAILING TO PROTECT [APPELLANT] BY REQUESTING A
COLLOQUY BEFORE STIPULATING TO MULTIPLE
STIPULATIONS AT [APPELLANT’S] JURY TRIAL, THEREBY
VIOLATING [APPELLANT’S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
(Appellant’s Brief at 9-10).
Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to
examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s determination
and whether its decision is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Conway,
14 A.3d 101, 109 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 612 Pa. 687, 29 A.3d 795
(2011). 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, 515 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 593 Pa. 754, 932 A.2d
74 (2007). We give no such deference, however, to the court’s legal
conclusions. Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super.
2012). Further, a petitioner is not entitled to a PCRA hearing as a matter of
right; the PCRA court can decline to hold a hearing if there is no genuine issue
concerning any material fact, the petitioner is not entitled to PCRA relief, and
no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. Commonwealth v.
Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. The court has
broad discretion to grant or deny a petition for an extension of time to file an
amended PCRA petition. Pa.R.Crim.P. 905(a); Commonwealth v. Padden,
783 A.2d 299, 308 (Pa.Super. 2001).
-3-
J-S02034-19
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glenn B.
Bronson, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The PCRA court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See PCRA Court Opinion, filed August 17, 2018, at 5-11) (finding:
(1 and 6) by filing notice of appeal on May 21, 2018, Appellant deprived PCRA
court of opportunity to vacate PCRA denial order and grant motion to file
amended petition; further, Appellant had opportunity to raise new issues in
his response to Rule 907 notice and raised all but one of proposed new issues
in his response to Rule 907 notice; only claim in proposed amended PCRA
petition that Appellant had not previously raised was ineffective assistance of
trial counsel for stipulating to certain trial testimony without conducting
colloquy with Appellant; Appellant’s proposed claim is without merit and would
not have entitled Appellant to PCRA relief, where colloquy on stipulations is
not required unless stipulations are equivalent to admissions of guilt; (2)
record demonstrates trial counsel moved to suppress Appellant’s statement to
police, which court denied after evidentiary hearing; record shows Appellant’s
statement was voluntary and court properly denied suppression motion;
therefore, claim lacks arguable merit; (3) prior to trial, Commonwealth
offered plea deal to Appellant to drop first degree murder charge in exchange
for guilty plea to third degree murder and various firearms charges; trial court
conducted oral plea colloquy; during colloquy, court asked Appellant if trial
-4-
J-S02034-19
counsel had explained plea offer to him, and Appellant responded, “Yes, he
explained it to me”; Appellant subsequently rejected plea offer; record makes
clear trial counsel conveyed plea offer to Appellant, and Appellant knowingly
rejected plea; therefore, this claim is frivolous; (4) on direct appeal, Superior
Court rejected Appellant’s claim that he was entitled to jury instruction on
voluntary manslaughter because trial evidence did not support it; counsel
cannot have been ineffective for failing to argue claim; (5) Appellant has failed
to allege how counsel’s failure to move for return of his property undermined
truth-determining process; therefore, Appellant’s complaint is not cognizable
PCRA claim). Accordingly, we affirm based on the PCRA court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/1/19
-5-
)
)
Circulated 03/04/2019 04:26 PM
� ' \
..
'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
2018 AUG 11 PH 3: 05 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
OFFICE OF JUDICIAL RECORDS
CRIMIHt'. �"M:R1}l
FIRST JIJ[•;rq.f?. ,,;.) ,W�EALTH OF CP·5 l-CR-OO 12715-2013
er· Pi:l,J�ENNS¥LV ANIA
• - -----..
Cp5 1·CR-001271S-2013 -
- .•• -- • '
v. C
n-?""'l·
....,.. '°" v. Pe