claim without hearing in Pennsylvania

2023The trial court erred by refusing to give a "Kloiber charge" that the witness' 4 identifications should be viewed with caution (see Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1954)) as to witness Mark Jordan and giving a modified version as to Denise Chandler.

2022Yeomans, supra. Accordingly, we discern no error or abuse of discretion with the PCRA court’s dismissal of this claim without a hearing. - 11 - J-A14044-22 In Appellant’s remaining issue, he raises for the first time a claim that PCRA counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to consult or communicate with him regarding his petition prior to filing a motion to withdraw as counsel.

2019Id.

2018The PCRA court recognized that, essentially, Miller’s argument “was that [Miller’s] trial counsel should have objected to or moved to have his sentence vacated and to be resentenced because the court sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory sentencing statute which counsel should have anticipated would be deemed to be rendered unconstitutional pursuant to the decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, [ 530 U.S. 466 (2000)], Alleyne v. United States, [ 570 U.S. 1 (2013)], and Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 632 Pa. 36 , 117 A.2d 247 (2015).” PCRA Court Opinion, 2/20/18, at 2.

2018The PCRA court recognized that, essentially, Miller’s argument “was that [Miller’s] trial counsel should have objected to or moved to have his sentence vacated and to be resentenced because the court sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory sentencing statute which counsel should have anticipated would be deemed to be rendered unconstitutional pursuant to the decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, [ 530 U.S. 466 (2000)], Alleyne v. United States, [ 570 U.S. 1 (2013)], and Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 632 Pa. 36 , 117 A.2d 247 (2015).” PCRA Court Opinion, 2/20/18, at 2.

2018Freeman argues that the PCRA court abused its discretion by not granting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for “failing to adequately address” the trial court about using Lyle’s ____________________________________________ been waived), citing Commonwealth v. Pitts, 981 A.2d 875 , 880 n.4 (Pa. 2009). - 13 - J-S25035-18 prior conviction for solicitation during counsel’s cross-examination of Lyle.

2018The PCRA court recognized that, essentially, Miller’s argument “was that [Miller’s] trial counsel should have objected to or moved to have his sentence vacated and to be resentenced because the court sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory sentencing statute which counsel should have anticipated would be deemed to be rendered unconstitutional pursuant to the decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, [ 530 U.S. 466 (2000)], Alleyne v. United States, [ 570 U.S. 1 (2013)], and Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 632 Pa. 36 , 117 A.2d 247 (2015).” PCRA Court Opinion, 2/20/18, at 2.

2017Commonwealth v. Stewart, 84 A.3d 701, 707 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). -4- J-S31003-17 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).

2015“There is no alternative basis for relief outside the framework of the PCRA.” Kutnyak, 781 A.2d at 1261 ; see also Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 983 (Pa. 2011) (“Futhermore, we have observed that the statute ‘confers no authority upon this Court to fashion ad hoc equitable exceptions to the PCRA time-bar in addition to those exceptions expressly delineated in the Act.[’]”). * * * -8- J-S23016-15 As [Appellant’s] first claim is devoid of an attempt to plead or prove at least one of the statutory exceptions articulated in § 9545(b)(1), this [c]ourt properly denied this claim without a hear

2014See generally Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 228 , 961 A.2d 80, 94 (2008) (where a PCRA petition’s assertions were speculative and the petitioner offered no evidence in support of a factual claim, concluding that his “assertion simply failed to raise an issue of material fact”); Commonwealth v. Abduh-Salaam, 571 Pa. 219, 230 , 812 A.2d 497, 503 (2002); Commonwealth v. Scott, 561 Pa. 617 , 627-28 & n. 8, 752 A.2d 871 , 877 & n. 8 (2000). 20 D.

2014See generally Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 228 , 961 A.2d 80, 94 (2008) (where a PCRA petition’s assertions were speculative and the petitioner offered no evidence in support of a factual claim, concluding that his “assertion simply failed to raise an issue of material fact”); Commonwealth v. Abduh-Salaam, 571 Pa. 219, 230 , 812 A.2d 497, 503 (2002); Commonwealth v. Scott, 561 Pa. 617 , 627-28 & n. 8, 752 A.2d 871 , 877 & n. 8 (2000). 20 D.

2013Clark, 599 Pa. at 229 , 961 A.2d at 95 ; Rios, 591 Pa. at 611 , 920 A.2d at 806 . 25 As a result, his argument that counsel should have objected to the jury instruction lacks arguable merit, and his ineffectiveness claim fails. 26 Accordingly, the PCRA court correctly dismissed this claim without a hearing.

2013Clark, 599 Pa. at 229 , 961 A.2d at 95 ; Rios, 591 Pa. at 611 , 920 A.2d at 806 . 25 As a result, his argument that counsel should have objected to the jury instruction lacks arguable merit, and his ineffectiveness claim fails. 26 Accordingly, the PCRA court correctly dismissed this claim without a hearing.

2003Although Appellant contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to establish his allegations, we find that the record before us is sufficient to address the claim without a hearing. *942 Commonwealth v. Lebo, 713 A.2d 1158 (Pa.Super.1998) (where record demonstrates that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim lacks arguable merit, or that no prejudice resulted, no evidentiary hearing is required). ¶ 24 Appellant asserts that he was prejudiced by the Gagnon II court’s reliance upon a probation officer’s testimony that on September 7, 2000, Appellant was found to have violated an exist