petition without an evidentiary hearing in Pennsylvania

2026When the PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, as is the case here, 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).

2025When the PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, as is the case here, 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-S09037-25 relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Khalifah, 852 A.2d 1238, 1240 (Pa.Super. 2004).

2026“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.” Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

2020When the PCRA court denies a petition without an evidentiary hearing, as is the case here, we “examine each issue raised in the PCRA petition in light of the record certified before [us] 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. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

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

2025See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 273 A.3d 13, 18 (Pa. Super. 2022).

2022Commonwealth v. Payne, 794 A.2d 902, 906 (Pa. Super. 2002); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907.

2022See Commonwealth v. Cappelli, 489 A.2d 813, 819 (Pa. Super. 1985); see also Commonwealth v. Payne, 794 A.2d 902, 906 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that PCRA court may deny a petition without an evidentiary hearing where it determines that the claims raised are without merit and would not entitle petitioner to post-conviction collateral relief); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(2) (permitting PCRA court to summarily dismiss a PCRA petition if there are no disputed factual issues to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing).

2020See Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 604 (Pa. 2013) (stating that “[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.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2019See Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 603 (Pa. 2013).

2018When 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) (citing Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541, 542-43 (Pa. 1997)).

2016When 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) (citing Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 701 A.2d 541, 542-43 (Pa. 1997)).

2020Further, our Supreme Court previously held that advance notice of intention to dismiss in former Rule 1507 was required “when the PCRA court dismisses the petition without an evidentiary hearing, regardless of whether the petitioner has been permitted to respond - 12 - J-A13023-20 to the Commonwealth’s arguments.” Commonwealth v. Morris, 684 A.2d 1037, 1046 (Pa. 1996).

2020Further, our Supreme Court previously held that advance notice of intention to dismiss in former Rule 1507 was required “when the PCRA court dismisses the petition without an evidentiary hearing, regardless of whether the petitioner has been permitted to respond - 12 - J-A13023-20 to the Commonwealth’s arguments.” Commonwealth v. Morris, 684 A.2d 1037, 1046 (Pa. 1996).

2020More recently, we noted that, [t]he purpose of a Rule 907 pre-dismissal notice is ‘to allow a petitioner an opportunity to seek leave to amend his petition and correct any material defects, the ultimate goal being to permit merits review by the PCRA court of potentially arguable claims.’ Commonwealth v. Rykard, [] 55 A.3d 1177, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2012)[.] The response to the Rule 907 notice ‘is an opportunity for a petitioner and/or his counsel to object to the dismissal and alert the PCRA court of a perceived error, permitting the court to discern the potential for amendment.’ Id.

2020More recently, we noted that, [t]he purpose of a Rule 907 pre-dismissal notice is ‘to allow a petitioner an opportunity to seek leave to amend his petition and correct any material defects, the ultimate goal being to permit merits review by the PCRA court of potentially arguable claims.’ Commonwealth v. Rykard, [] 55 A.3d 1177, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2012)[.] The response to the Rule 907 notice ‘is an opportunity for a petitioner and/or his counsel to object to the dismissal and alert the PCRA court of a perceived error, permitting the court to discern the potential for amendment.’ Id.

2018A PCRA court may “decline to hold an evidentiary hearing if the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and has no support either in the record or other evidence.” Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Turetsky, 925 A.2d 876, 879 (Pa.Super. 2007)).

2017See id.

2017See Commonwealth v. Reid, 627 Pa. 151 , 99 ____________________________________________ 15 Moreover, we note that Clyburn testified at Bennett’s co-defendants’ preliminary hearing that she had been diagnosed with depression, and she took medication prescribed for her depression.

2017See Commonwealth v. Reid, 627 Pa. 151 , 99 A.3d 470 (2014).

2017Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in accepting the petition without an evidentiary hearing, where [Appellant] provided exculpatory evidence of a key prosecution witness admitting that ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. Super. 1988). -2- J-S06022-17 she provided false testimony at the preliminary hearing and is now recanting that testimony. [sic] Testimony that was instrumental in [Appellant] accepting a plea to crimes of which he is legally innocent?

2016Appellant did not respond, and by order entered on ____________________________________________ 1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 2 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16), and (a)(31), respectively. -2- J-S74012-16 February 5, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition.

2017Whether the PCRA [c]ourt erred in accepting the petition without an evidentiary hearing, where [Appellant] provided exculpatory evidence of a key prosecution witness admitting that ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927, 928 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. Super. 1988). -2- J-S06022-17 she provided false testimony at the preliminary hearing and is now recanting that testimony. [sic] Testimony that was instrumental in [Appellant] accepting a plea to crimes of which he is legally innocent?

2016Appellant did not respond, and by order entered on ____________________________________________ 1 Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 2 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16), and (a)(31), respectively. -2- J-S74012-16 February 5, 2016, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s petition.

2026See Commonwealth v. McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 65 (Pa. Super. 2017) (a premature notice of appeal in a PCRA context is perfected upon dismissal of the petition). -4- J-S44039-25 Our standard of review for a PCRA court’s order dismissing a petition without an evidentiary hearing is as follows: Appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a PCRA petition is limited to the examination of whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the record and free of legal error.

2025“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.” Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted); see also Maddrey, 205 A.3d at 328 (stating, “if the PCRA court can determine from the record that no genuine issues of material fact exist, then a hearing is not necessary.”).

2024This Court addresses the dismissal of a PCRA petition pursuant to the following standards: “In general, we review an order dismissing or denying a PCRA petition as to whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Howard, 285 A.3d 652, 657 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

2023See Commonwealth v. Ellison, 851 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super. 2004). 6We note that a PCRA court may dismiss a petition without an evidentiary hearing “[i]f the judge is satisfied from this review that there are no genuine (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 11 - J-S41032-22 Order vacated; Case remanded; Jurisdiction relinquished.

2022Id. at 465 (finding violation of Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). 2“[A]ll motions filed after a judgment of sentence is final are to be construed as PCRA petitions.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2013) (collecting cases); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (PCRA provides sole means of obtaining collateral relief). -2- J-S34020-22 issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2022See Commonwealth v. Cappelli, 489 A.2d 813, 819 (Pa. Super. 1985); see also Commonwealth v. Payne, 794 A.2d 902, 906 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that PCRA court may deny a petition without an evidentiary hearing where it determines that the claims raised are without merit and would not entitle petitioner to post-conviction collateral relief); Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(2) (permitting PCRA court to summarily dismiss a PCRA petition if there are no disputed factual issues to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing).

2022See Commonwealth v. Brown, 141 A.3d 491, 507-08 (Pa. Super. 2016) (where the record was unclear as to whether the petitioner acted with due diligence in uncovering evidence underlying his newly discovered fact claim, the PCRA court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing on timeliness).

2022Id. at 465 (finding violation of Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). 2“[A]ll motions filed after a judgment of sentence is final are to be construed as PCRA petitions.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2013) (collecting cases); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 (PCRA provides sole means of obtaining collateral relief). -2- J-S34020-22 issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2020As to Brady claims advanced under the PCRA, a defendant must demonstrate that the alleged Brady violation “so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken -4- J-S06030-20 place.” Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 980 A.2d 61, 76 (Pa. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2020Additionally, we note that, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant . . . any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1037 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 217 A.3d 793 (Pa. 2019).

2020When 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). “[T]o establish a Brady violation, an appellant must prove three elements: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exc

2019“An allegation is deemed waived ‘if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 872 A.2d 1139, 1144 (Pa. 2005) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b)).