request for an evidentiary hearing in Pennsylvania

2025“With respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015).

2024“With respect to the PCRA court's decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 248 A.3d 1285, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2021), quoting Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015).

2025“With respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing. . . , such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2021“With respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323 , 327 ____________________________________________ 3The Commonwealth’s brief appears to refer solely to Appellant’s prior appeal and does not address any of Appellant’s current issues. -5- J-S54014-20 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 218 A.3d 380 (Pa. 2019) (citation and quotation omitted).

2026Commonwealth v. Wilson, 273 A.3d 13, 18 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2025With respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. ____________________________________________ 3 A transcript of this hearing was not included in the certified record. -6- J-A10039-24 Commonwealth v. Wilson, 273 A.3d 13, 18 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations omitted).

2020(Appellant’s brief at 2.) As noted above, “[w]ith respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Mason, 130 A.3d at 617 , citing Reid, 99 A.3d at 485 .

2018“With respect to the PCRA court's decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015) (citing Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 485 (Pa. 2014)).

2026Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015). “[T]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition[.]” Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323, 328 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa.Super. 2008)).

2020Further, “[w]ith respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing . . ., such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting Mason, 130 A.3d at 617 ).

2017“A PCRA court does not abuse its discretion merely by dismissing some claims without a hearing and conducting an evidentiary hearing oh other claims.” Commonwealth v. Watkins, 630 Pa. 652 , 108 A.3d 692, 726 (2014) (citation omitted).

2017“A PCRA court does not abuse its discretion merely by dismissing some claims without a hearing and conducting an evidentiary hearing oh other claims.” Commonwealth v. Watkins, 630 Pa. 652 , 108 A.3d 692, 726 (2014) (citation omitted).

2025Commonwealth v. McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 70 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2021Commonwealth v. McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 70 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2024“There is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[T]o obtain 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, 45

2021Furthermore, it is well settled that “[t]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.2d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[T]o obtain 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.” C

2024Where a petitioner challenges the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, “[a] reviewing court on appeal must -9- J-S02007-24 examine each of the issues raised . . . in light of the record to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. duPont, 860 A.2d 525, 530 (Pa. Super. 2004). “[T]here is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material

2021“There is no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition, and if the PCRA -4- J-S28011-21 court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.” Commonwealth v. Springer, 961 A.2d 1262, 1264 (Pa.Super. 2008).

2023The filing of a PCRA petition and a request for an evidentiary hearing “is not meant to function as a fishing expedition for any possible evidence that may support some speculative claim of ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 605 (Pa. 2013).

2017Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1); Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 604 (Pa. 2014). 5 Although the Superior Court below suggested that Appellee’s response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice was untimely, a review of the original record indicates that Appellee’s response, consisting of an amended PCRA petition and a request for an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel, was placed in the prison mailbox by Appellee on August 21, 2013, and, moreover, was received by the PCRA court on August 23, 2013.

2019When the PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, we “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 -5- J-S34004-19 relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

2019When the PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, we “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.” Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). -4- J-S38030-19 In his Amended PCRA Petition and in his Brief, Appellant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: 1) seek reconsider

2017In Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626, 640-642 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), this court held that a request for an evidentiary hearing under the PCRA did not require affidavits from witnesses.

2017(See PCRA court opinion, 6/28/16 at 11.) However, in Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626, 640-642 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc), this court held that a request for an evidentiary hearing under the PCRA did not require affidavits from witnesses.

2025To obtain an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must include with the petition “a signed certification as to each intended witness” and provide “the witness’s name, address, date of birth and the substance of the proposed testimony.” Brown, 767 A.2d at 582 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d)(1)); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15) (providing that a request for an evidentiary hearing shall include a signed certification as to each intended witness).

2023See - 13 - J-S06039-23 Commonwealth v. Brown, 767 A.2d 576, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001) (“[W]here a petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing,…the petition must include…a signed certification as to each intended witness and the petitioner must also provide the witness’s name, address, date of birth and the substance of the proposed testimony.”); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d)(1).7 Further, he has failed to demonstrate why he could not have learned the witnesses allegedly lied to the police “earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Brown, 111 A.3d at 176 .

2023See - 13 - J-S06039-23 Commonwealth v. Brown, 767 A.2d 576, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001) (“[W]here a petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing,…the petition must include…a signed certification as to each intended witness and the petitioner must also provide the witness’s name, address, date of birth and the substance of the proposed testimony.”); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(d)(1).7 Further, he has failed to demonstrate why he could not have learned the witnesses allegedly lied to the police “earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Brown, 111 A.3d at 176 .

2021In considering an untimely PCRA, we note that “the timeliness of a PCRA petition is a jurisdictional requisite.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 175 (Pa. Super. 2015).

2026Accord Commonwealth v. Jeter, 296 A.3d 1187 (Pa.Super. 2023) - 16 - J-A25020-25 (holding trial court abused its discretion in denying a request for an evidentiary hearing where a party alleged that one of the jurors had talked about the case with her father during jury deliberations because she was having difficulty deciding how to vote, and she ultimately voted guilty as a result of the discussions).

2025“The PCRA court may dismiss a petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing when the court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled to post[-]conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025“With respect to the PCRA court’s decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 324 A.3d 551, 564 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation omitted).

2025The PCRA court’s credibility determinations, when supported by the record, are binding on this Court; however, we apply a de novo standard of review to the PCRA court's legal conclusions[.] Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015) (citations omitted). “[C]ounsel is presumed effective, and [the appellant] bears the burden of proving otherwise.” Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 804 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

2024Any documents material to the witness’s testimony shall also be included in the petition[.] Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15). -8- J-S47045-23 well settled that the failure of trial counsel “to call a particular witness does not constitute ineffective assistance without some showing that the absent witness’ testimony would have been beneficial or helpful in establishing the asserted defense.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523, 536 (Pa. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2024“With respect to the PCRA court's decision to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing, or to hold a limited evidentiary hearing, such a decision is within the discretion of the PCRA court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 248 A.3d 1285, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2021), quoting Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 617 (Pa. 2015).

2023See id. 4 We address Diluzio’s ineffectiveness claims together for ease of disposition. -6- J-S38036-23 for failing to object to or take action to remedy the defective guilty plea colloquy.

2021Additionally, if “there are no disputed factual issues, an -7- J-S16027-21 evidentiary hearing is not required.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Morris, 684 A.2d 1037, 1042 (Pa. 1996)).

2021We therefore review the denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing by “‘determin[ing] whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.’” Commonwealth v. Hart, 199 A.3d 475, 481 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

2021Additionally, if “there are no disputed factual issues, an -7- J-S16027-21 evidentiary hearing is not required.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Morris, 684 A.2d 1037, 1042 (Pa. 1996)).

2020Initially, we note that the “failure to call character witnesses does not constitute per se ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 463 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).

2018Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2018Petitioner "must prove (1) that the underlying claim has arguable merit, (2) that counsel's conduct was without a reasonable basis designed to effectuate his or her client's The 1925(b) Statement also reiterates the request for an evidentiary hearing or a withdrawal of the guilty plea. 15 However, an appeal is not the correct stage of proceedings for this Court to grant that relief. 4 interest, and (3) that counsel's ineffectiveness prejudiced [petitioner]." Commonwealth v. Allen, 833 A.2d 800, 802 (Pa.Super, 2003) (citations omitted).