J-S41006-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOEL ROBERT SNIDER :
:
Appellant : No. 1161 MDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 7, 2019,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-60-CR-0000340-2010.
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 30, 2020
Joel Robert Snider appeals from the order dismissing his petition filed
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We
affirm.
This Court has previously summarized the pertinent facts and partial
procedural history as follows:
On August 8, 2014, Snider entered into a negotiated plea
of guilty but mentally ill to one count of third-degree murder
and one count of burglary. The charges arose from the
shooting death of Sudharman Joseph Fenton on July 5,
2010. Snider was sentenced at the time of his plea to the
agreed upon aggregate sentence of 30–60 years’
incarceration. On July 7, 2015, Snider filed an untimely, pro
se, notice of appeal. This notice was docketed on July 10,
2015. At the same time, he sought appointment of counsel.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41006-20
The trial court denied Snider counsel but did not address the
notice of appeal. Shortly after the denial of his request for
counsel, Snider filed a pro se PCRA petition. In that petition,
Snider indicated counsel never consulted with him regarding
a direct appeal, and that due to his mental illness and the
nature of his incarceration, he was unable to contact
counsel. Snider further allege[d] that as his illness
stabilized, he did contact counsel and asked that a direct
appeal be filed. However, counsel declined as the 30-day
limit to file an appeal had expired.
Snider was appointed counsel who filed an amended
PCRA petition. That petition . . . incorporated all of Snider’s
claims raised in the pro se PCRA petition and amplified [the]
claims Snider raised regarding his mental illness and
whether his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent. The PCRA court denied Snider’s petition without
a hearing. [Snider appealed].
Commonwealth v. Snider, 181 A.3d 437 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished
memorandum).
Before we decided Snider’s substantive issues on his 2017 PCRA appeal,
we addressed the pro se notice of appeal filed by Snider, but unresolved by
the trial court. A panel of this Court reasoned, that this circumstance
“represent[ed] a “breakdown of the judicial process.” Snider, unpublished
memorandum at 3. We then determined that the unresolved pro se notice of
appeal should have been treated as a PCRA petition, and, therefore, the pro
se PCRA petition at issue would be considered an amendment to that filing.
Id. Noting that Snider’s pro se PCRA petition “included references to his
attempts to file a direct appeal and/or withdraw his guilty plea,” we interpreted
Snider’s petition “to include a request for nunc pro tunc relief to file a direct
appeal.” Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). We then concluded that a remand was
-2-
J-S41006-20
necessary to determine if Snider’s direct appeal right should be reinstated
nunc pro tunc:
This issue, left unresolved by the breakdown of the judicial
process, must be addressed; therefore, a remand to the
PCRA court is necessary. Because there exists a possibility
that Snider is entitled to nunc pro tunc relief, we will not
address any of the other issues raised in Snider’s PCRA
petition. If the parties and the court believe there are other
issues that need factual clarification, the hearing may
include those as well.
Snider, unpublished memorandum at 4-5. Thus, we vacated the PCRA court’s
order denying relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Following remand, the PCRA court held a series of evidentiary hearings,
at which multiple witnesses testified, including Snider and Snider’s trial
counsel. According to Snider, his direct appeal rights should be reinstated
nunc pro tunc because prison officials, as well as prison conditions, prevented
him from communicating with trial counsel during the applicable appeal
period. See N.T., 2/12/18, at 35-44. Snider further testified that he was
incompetent at the time he entered his guilty plea. See N.T., 12/20/18, at
15. Snider’s trial counsel testified that Snider did not request an appeal in a
timely manner, and stated that he would have filed the appeal if Snider had
requested him to do so. Trial counsel also testified that he believed Snider
was competent to enter his guilty plea. See N.T., 2/12/18, at 14-22.
-3-
J-S41006-20
By ordered entered June 7, 2019, the PCRA court denied Snider’s PCRA
petition. This timely appeal followed. This Court remanded for a Grazier1
hearing. The PCRA court held the hearing on January 30, 2020. Thereafter,
the PCRA court permitted PCRA counsel who had filed Snider’s notice of appeal
to withdraw and appointed present counsel.2 The PCRA court did not require
appointed counsel to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The PCRA court did not
file a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Snider now raises the following issues:
I. Whether the [PCRA] court [] erred/abused its
discretion in denying [Snider’s] petition for post
conviction relief?
II. Whether the [PCRA] court [] erred/abused its
discretion in denying [Snider’s] request to reinstate
his direct appeal rights?
Snider’s Brief at 11.
Our scope and standard of review is well-settled:
In PCRA appeals, our scope of review is limited to the
findings of the PCRA court and the evidence on the record
of the PCRA court's hearing, viewed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party. Because most PCRA
____________________________________________
1 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
2 On April 21, 2020, present counsel filed an application for remand on Snider’s
behalf, in which Snider requested a remand for another evidentiary hearing
so that he could raise claims that his trial and PCRA counsel were ineffective.
Both claims of ineffectiveness are being raised inappropriately for the first
time on appeal. See generally, Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Commonwealth v. Ford,
44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012). Thus, we deny Snider’s application for
remand.
-4-
J-S41006-20
appeals involve questions of fact and law, we employ a
mixed standard of review. We defer to the PCRA court's
factual findings and credibility determinations supported by
the record. In contrast, we review the PCRA court's legal
conclusions de novo.
Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 779 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Regarding the reinstatement of direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc, this
Court has summarized:
Generally, if counsel ignores a defendant’s request to file
a direct appeal, the defendant is entitled to have his
appellate rights restored. Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558
Pa. 214, 736 A.2d 564 (1999). In Lantzy, our Supreme
Court held that an unjustified failure to file a direct appeal
upon request is prejudice per se, and if the remaining
requirements are satisfied, a defendant does not have to
demonstrate his innocence or the merits of the issue he
would have pursued on appeal to be entitled to relief.
However, such relief is only appropriate where the petitioner
pleads and proves that a timely appeal was in fact requested
and that counsel ignored that request. Commonwealth v.
Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023, 1024 (Pa. Super. 1999). A mere
allegation will not suffice to prove that counsel ignored a
petitioner’s request to file an appeal.
Commonwealth v. Spencer, 892 A.2d 840, 842 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Snider does not expressly raise a claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness
for failing to file a timely appeal. Rather he “avers he was obstructed from
filing a direct appeal by improperly [being] denied his right to contact counsel
and his lack of mental health treatment including being deprived of his
medication and [being] placed into solitary confinement.” Snider’s Brief at
14. Notwithstanding, his failure to challenge counsel’s effectiveness, Snider’s
-5-
J-S41006-20
initial burden of proof remains the same—he must first establish that he
requested the appeal.
Here, the PCRA court concluded that Snider failed to meet his burden of
proof. The PCRA court reasoned: “[Snider] testified at length about the
alleged interference on the part of state prison officials with his direct appeal
rights. This court does not find this testimony credible.” PCRA Court Opinion,
6/7/19, at 4 (unnumbered).
Our review of the record supports the PCRA court’s conclusions. This
Court “must defer to the credibility determinations made by the [PCRA] court
that observed a witness’s demeanor first hand.” Commonwealth v. Todd,
820 A.2d 707, 712 (Pa. Super. 2003). As a matter of credibility, the PCRA
court believed did not believe Snider. We cannot disturb this determination.
See Commonwealth v. Harmon, 738 A.2d 1023, 1025 (Pa. Super. 1999)
(explaining that when a PCRA court’s determination of credibility is supported
by the record, it cannot be disturbed on appeal). In addition, while Jean
Landis, whom Snider described as a part of “the mitigation portion3 of my legal
team” and “a liaison between myself and [trial counsel],” confirmed that she
spoke with Snider during the time for filing a timely appeal, she had no
recollection of Snider asking her to inform trial counsel that he wished to file
____________________________________________
3 The Commonwealth originally charged Snider with capital murder; Snider
avoided a potential death sentence by entering his negotiated guilty plea.
-6-
J-S41006-20
an appeal. According to Ms. Landis, had Snider asked for an appeal, she would
have passed that request on to trial counsel. See N.T., 4/1/19, at 8-26.
In sum, the PCRA court correctly determined that Snider did not
establish his burden of proving he had requested a direct appeal. We therefore
affirm the PCRA court’s order denying post-conviction relief.
Application for Remand denied. Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/30/2020
-7-