J-S11039-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ADAM LEE GREENLEE, :
:
Appellant : No. 1411 WDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 4, 2019
in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-20-CR-0000065-2018
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MAY 27, 2020
Adam Lee Greenlee (“Greenlee”) appeals from the Order dismissing his
Petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
On April 12, 2018, Greenlee pled guilty to first-degree murder,1 for the
stabbing death of a GNC store employee. The trial court sentenced Greenlee
to a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Greenlee
did not file post sentence motions or a direct appeal.
On February 25, 2019, Greenlee, pro se, filed the instant, timely PCRA
Petition. The PCRA court appointed Greenlee counsel, who filed an Amended
PCRA Petition raising various ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and
challenging the validity of Greenlee’s guilty plea.
____________________________________________
1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).
J-S11039-20
By Memorandum and Order filed on August 9, 2019, the PCRA court
reviewed Greenlee’s claims, and issued Notice pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907
of its intention to dismiss Greenlee’s Petition without a hearing. Greenlee did
not file a response. On September 4, 2019, the PCRA court dismissed
Greenlee’s Petition, explaining that there were no genuine issues of material
fact. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Greenlee raises the following issue for our review: “Whether
the [PCRA] court erred by failing to schedule an evidentiary hearing in order
to provide [Greenlee] with the opportunity to provide testimonial evidence in
support of the issues raised in his [A]mended [PCRA Petition]?” Brief for
Appellant at 7.
We adhere to the following standard of review:
We review an order dismissing a petition under the PCRA in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level.
This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the
evidence of record. We will not disturb a PCRA court’s ruling if it
is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error.
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
omitted).
There is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing, and a PCRA court
has discretion to deny a petition without a hearing “if the PCRA court
determines that the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and is without a
trace of support in either the record or from other evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939, 941 (Pa. Super. 2006). “To obtain
-2-
J-S11039-20
reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to dismiss a petition without a hearing, an
appellant must show that he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved
in his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise
abused its discretion in denying a hearing.” Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30
A.3d 426, 438 (Pa. 2011) (citation and brackets omitted). Thus, when the
PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, we “examine
each issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the certified record before it
in order to determine if the PCRA court erred in its determination that there
were no genuine issues of material fact in controversy and in denying relief
without conducting and evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Khalifah,
852 A.2d 1238, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2004).
Greenlee provides very little argument in support of his claim. Instead,
Greenlee first sets forth the statements he made during his guilty plea
hearing. See Brief for Appellant at 16-18. Greenlee then sets forth additional
statements contained in his Affidavit, which he attached to his Amended PCRA
Petition. See id. at 19-23. In reference to the Affidavit, Greenlee emphasizes
his statements that he was in a “drug-induced state” at the time of the
murder; he had no malice towards the victim; his intention prior to entering
the store was to steal merchandise; he did not have a specific intent to kill the
victim; and he communicated the aforementioned information to his trial
counsel. Id. at 23. Greenlee claims that the PCRA court improperly
considered only the transcripts of the plea hearing. Id. at 24.
-3-
J-S11039-20
Greenlee’s argument is entirely devoid of substantive legal argument.
Indeed, Greenlee failed to identify any claims that are cognizable under the
PCRA, and which would entitle him to relief. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)
(setting forth the various cognizable claims under the PCRA). Although
Greenlee’s PCRA Petition challenges the validity of his guilty plea and the
effectiveness of his plea counsel, Greenlee’s brief neither identifies the
standards governing this Court’s review of such claims, nor sets forth
argument relevant to such claims. Because Greenlee’s argument is wholly
undeveloped, his claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160
A.3d 798, 804 (Pa. Super. 2017) (stating that “[t]his Court will not act as
counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” (citation
and quotation marks omitted)); Commonwealth v. McMullen, 745 A.2d
683, 689 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that “[w]hen the appellant fails to
adequately develop his argument, meaningful appellate review is not
possible.” (citation omitted)). Moreover, Greenlee’s bald assertion that the
PCRA court did not consider his Affidavit does not satisfy his burden of
establishing that he raised a genuine issue of material fact. See Hanible,
supra.2
____________________________________________
2 We observe that the PCRA court fully addressed each of the claims Greenlee
raised in his Amended PCRA Petition. See Memorandum and Order, 8/9/19,
at 2-7. Even if we could address Greenlee’s underlying claims, we would
conclude that he is not entitled to relief, for the reasons set forth by the PCRA
court. See id.
-4-
J-S11039-20
Accordingly, the PCRA court did not err in dismissing Greenlee’s Petition
without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/27/2020
-5-