J-S43019-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TRACEY RAYNARD BRADLEY
Appellant No. 2230 MDA 2015
Appeal from the PCRA Order November 24, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004137-2010
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 05, 2016
Appellant, Tracey Raynard Bradley, appeals pro se from the order
dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”).
Bradley raises multiple challenges to the PCRA court’s decision. After careful
review of Bradley’s filings and the rest of the certified record, we affirm on
the basis of the PCRA court’s substantive reasoning.
A jury convicted Bradley of first-degree murder and associated crimes
arising from the murder of Lee Choppin in Choppin’s motel room. This Court
affirmed the judgment of sentence on February 25, 2014. The Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania declined allowance of appeal on July 25, 2014. On
May 5, 2015, Bradley filed the instant, timely first PCRA petition.
Counsel was appointed to represent Bradley, but subsequently was
permitted to withdraw under Tuner/Finley procedures. The PCRA court
J-S43019-16
provided Bradley with notice of its intent to dismiss his petition. In response,
Bradley filed a request to be permitted to file an amended PCRA petition,
which the PCRA court denied, while granting Bradley additional time to
respond to its notice to dismiss. Bradley did not respond, and the PCRA court
dismissed his petition. This timely appeal followed.
As a prefatory matter, we must address whether Bradley has waived
all issues on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. The PCRA court ordered
Bradley to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal, and has
notified us that it never received such a document from Bradley. The
Commonwealth rightly argues that Bradley’s failure to comply with the PCRA
court’s directive renders all of Bradley’s issues on appeal waived. See
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011).
In response to the PCRA court’s and Commonwealth’s arguments,
Bradley has filed multiple documents with this Court in an attempt to
establish that he mailed a statement of matters complained of on appeal to
the PCRA court from the prison in which he is incarcerated. Normally, this
situation would call for a remand to the PCRA court to make factual findings
regarding whether Bradley has complied with Rule 1925 pursuant to the
prisoner mailbox rule. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa.
1997).
In this case, however, we conclude that such a step would be a waste
of judicial resources, as the PCRA court, in addition to asserting Bradley’s
-2-
J-S43019-16
non-compliance with Rule 1925, has thoroughly and adequately addressed
the claims Bradley seeks to raise on appeal, to the extent that we can
identify them. To the extent that Bradley is seeking to raise issues in
addition to those addressed by the PCRA court, we conclude such issues are
waived due to the substantial defects in Bradley’s briefs.1
“On appeal from the 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), cert. denied,
Edmiston v. Pennsylvania, 134 S. Ct. 639 (2013). “[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 PCRA court
level.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 131 (Pa. 2012) (citation
omitted).
____________________________________________
1
“When a party’s brief fails to conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure
and the defects are substantial, this Court may, in its discretion, quash or
dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 2101.” Giant Food Stores, LLC v. THF
Silver Spring Development, L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 443 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101). Furthermore, “[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.”
Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-943 (Pa.
Super. 2006). This Court does not take on the mantle of advocate and
perform as appellant’s counsel. See Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d
1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1993).
-3-
J-S43019-16
“[T]his Court applies a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court’s
legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (Pa. 2011)
(citation omitted). In order to be eligible for PCRA relief, a petitioner must
plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction or
sentence arose from one or more of the errors listed at 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9543(a)(2). These issues must be neither previously litigated nor waived.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3).
Bradley first argues that his right to be free of coercive questioning
was violated. As the PCRA court accurately notes, however, this issue has
been extensively litigated at trial and on direct appeal. See PCRA Court
Opinion, 2/23/16, at 1-2. It is therefore not the basis for relief under the
PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3).
Next, Bradley argues, in a multifaceted attack,2 that the
Commonwealth failed to prove the cause of Choppin’s death. Once again the
PCRA court correctly notes that this issue was extensively litigated at trial
and on direct appeal, is therefore not a basis for relief under the PCRA. See
PCRA Court Opinion, 2/23/16, at 1, 3.
Bradley’s final arguments are all based on allegations of trial counsel
ineffectiveness. It is well settled that
____________________________________________
2
Among others, Bradley contends that the Commonwealth’s medical expert
committed perjury at trial.
-4-
J-S43019-16
[t]o plead and prove ineffective assistance of counsel a
petitioner must establish: (1) that the underlying issue has
arguable merit; (2) counsel’s actions lacked an objective
reasonable basis; and (3) actual prejudice resulted from
counsel's act or failure to act.
Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1189-1190 (Pa. Super. 2012).
“Generally, where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, counsel’s
assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course
that had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests.”
Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874, 887 (Pa. 2010) (citation
omitted). A failure to satisfy any prong of the test will require rejection of
the claim. See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014).
The right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction petition is not
absolute. See Commonwealth v. Jordan, 772 A.2d 1011, 1014 (Pa.
Super. 2001). It is within the PCRA court’s discretion to decline to hold a
hearing if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no support
either in the record or other evidence. See id. It is the responsibility of the
reviewing court on appeal to examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition
in light of the record certified 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 an
evidentiary hearing. See Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541,
542-543 (Pa. 1997).
-5-
J-S43019-16
In “ineffectiveness claims in particular, if the record reflects that the
underlying issue is of no arguable merit or no prejudice resulted, no
evidentiary hearing is required.” Commonwealth v. Bauhammers, 92
A.3d 708, 726-727 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). “Prejudice is established if
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 707 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). We review a PCRA court’s decision to
deny a claim without a hearing for an abuse of discretion. See id.
In reviewing Bradley’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,
the PCRA court found that Bradley had failed to establish arguable merit for
any of them. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/23/16, at 3-8. We can discern no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s reasoning, and therefore affirm on that
basis.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/5/2016
-6-
Circulated 06/15/2016 09:54 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. CP-67-CR-4137-2010
v.
h'
TRACEY R. BRADLEY, ,-
,'>
....,
'".
(
"
Defendant rnO
:::uc> i'r] \',:;
:3:: ::f~ 0''; n :;;'
N ).::=;-: ,.
00 w r-r:-.'
"'1-i(j';
(J'-;: . ";
APPEARANCES: (J~~
~ . ;;;'-.'
r..-, .,;: ". :
orTt
JAMES ZAMKOTOWICZ, Esquire
c·r-
~]r-
-i
(f)
--
::x
a
z""- .'
-(-